[D]ue to the threats of global warming and skyrocketing oil and gas prices that have caught everyone's attention, all the parties have jumped on the green bandwagon with many promising a future where our dependence on fossil fuels and their harmful consequences to our environment will be a thing of the past. Such Utopian visions are commendable but the devil will be in the details for whoever forms the next government

I find it amazing that the public is so uninformed on the topic of wind turbines. People think wind is the golden egg of green energy; in fact, turbine companies cannot exist as viable companies without government subsidies. ...Green energy is great, I'm all for it, but not at a cost that will put the average Canadian taxpayer in the poor house.

Next week Grand Mananers will be invited to a public meeting to hear about a wind farm planned for the "back of the island-" the high western cliffs facing the Grand Manan Channel and the State of Maine. The proponent, First Wind of Newton, Massachusetts, acquired the rights to the site on property owned by the off-island Crabbe forestry company, from a fledgling New Brunswick company that has since disappeared from the scene. The First Wind plan is for 13 wind turbines (over 200 feet or 60 metres high), with the potential for another 50 if all goes well.

Ontario, which has developed and implemented some progressive policies for getting more renewable energy on the grid, hasn't found a way to tie these programs into a larger, economic-boosting industrial strategy. None of its request for proposals for new wind power has required any level of local content, nor does the province's standard offer program, which pays a premium for the electricity that comes from small-scale solar, wind, hydro and biogas projects.

Conventional wisdom, of which public opinion is a component, supports industrial wind power well beyond its negligible merits for electricity generation and CO2 emissions reduction. Although not well-informed, this popular view is understandable because of concerns about climate change, media hype, political policies that claim to address this issue, pronouncements by environmentalists stepping outside their area of expertise, and effective promotion by wind power organizations. Europe is looked to, undeservedly, as a model. This drives a political motivation for governments to take action in support of wind power, and for opposition parties to criticize any apparent lack of action. It has made having "green" credentials a political necessity.

As much as there's been lots of talk about wind addressing our energy needs in the future, that future would appear to be a long way off yet. Wind accounts for less than 1 per cent of the energy produced in Canada (Ontario is the wind-farm leader). The Canadian Wind Energy Association believes it can be 5 per cent by 2010. ...There's no shortage of people, including green enthusiasts, who believe the forecasts are wildly optimistic. While wind certainly offers us hope and will be a weapon in our collective fight for energy independence, it's also a technology that poses huge challenges.

Wind energy has its problems. It only comes when the wind blows. This reality - this Achilles' heel - makes wind a nuisance in the eyes of power-system operators, who have the challenge of trying to balance electricity supply and demand on the grid. This means we need to adapt the grid so it becomes easier to predict and manage such an intermittent, yet crucial resource. Too many jurisdictions - including Ontario - try to shoehorn wind and other renewable technologies into a 100-year-old electricity system designed for big central power plants. For this reason, wind bears a burden it inherited, and takes blame for inflexibility it didn't create

I have read many articles, columns and letters lately with regard to wind energy in general and the Wolfe Island proposed wind farm in specific. I have read these items with dread, as I know that it is inevitable that wind power will be coming to this area in spite of its unsightliness, inefficiency and expense. ...Climate change isn't going to stop tomorrow; weather patterns are changing. Who knows where the wind is going to blow tomorrow? You can't move a wind turbine once it's built; its placement is dictated by access to the resource.

Gilead Power, a privately owned renewable energy company, is proposing a wind farm of up to 13, 90-metre high turbines in Ostrander Point Crown Land block, directly west of the National Wildlife Area and in the heart of the Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area. ...now is the time to ask politicians and the candidates the hard questions about this important part of Canada's natural heritage. Is the provincial government willing to protect the integrity of migratory bird habitat and say no to the wind farm at Ostrander Point? Are our leaders in Ottawa ready to ante-up the required resources to get our national wildlife areas off life-support? Demand answers!

Members of Chatham-Kent council who have expressed some hesitation about the proliferation of wind turbines within the municipality are right to be worried. According to the municipality's planning consultant, Chatham-Kent could receive proposals to build as many as "650 to 700 additional turbines," although just 200 to 250 turbines in Chatham-Kent AND nearby Essex County can be supported right now by the electricity grid. Yet a land rush mentality appears to be sweeping through those companies ...But wind energy won't solve all of our energy challenges. Interest in their development was only launched by the McGuinty government four years ago, after the Liberals had won the election and had promised to close Ontario's coal-fired plants by 2007. It was a decision made entirely because of political idealism. It was a rash promise, but part of the public's imagination was piqued by the idea of harnessing the wind.

To become carbon neutral, a company would either reduce its own emissions or offset the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) it creates by buying credits from a project that has lower emissions. At least one aspect of this proposal could translate into taxpayer savings. Starting in 2008, government organizations are supposed to reduce emissions on government business travel. ...Not only will carbon neutrality probably cost an arm and a leg, it provides no guarantee that man-made CO2 emissions will fall. Although CO2 reductions may result in welcome savings in a day and age when in- person meetings are seldom a technological necessity, offsets could have significant unintended consequences. Hospitals already have enough challenges, and now their bureaucrats are going to spend time and money trading CO2? Just a thought, but maybe reducing surgical wait times should be a higher priority. B.C. taxpayers will be paying big time for feel good messages that may have little or no benefit. This is very costly hot air.

After 19 months of commercial wind power operating experience in Ontario, there is some good news. Our wind farms produce almost up to target levels. The companies delivering wind power are mostly established energy firms. All are installing state of the art technology. Wind-farm operators in Ontario are subject to stricter technical controls than in Germany where, last November, wind power contributed to a continental grid blackout. For all its strengths, we now have enough information to conclude that wind power in Ontario is a disaster for consumers. ...Wind power's lack of overall value has not prevented our politicians from embracing it. Mr. McGuinty's group has decreed that, by the end of 2010, wind capacity will triple and then almost triple again by 2025. By 2027, the government says wind will supply 12% of the province's power generation. McGuinty's rivals all complain that this is just not enough.

It proves actions speak louder than words and the reality is no matter what the government says about coal-fuelled power stations, Ontario is in desperate need of the power they produce. The truth is, a huge power producer cannot be replaced by things like wind turbines even if they were installed downwind of Queen's Park.

Premier McGuinty no doubt has good political reasons to once again announce the retirement of Ontario's coal-fired power plants. Canadians may want the moral satisfaction of being able to say "Okay, so it's still warming, but at least, we're not contributing as much to the problem." But this moral satisfaction will come at a high price, as Ontarians see higher energy costs and reduced economic competitiveness, with no genuine compensating improvement in health or environmental quality.

Renewable does not mean green. That is the claim of Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller University in New York. Writing in Inderscience's International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, Ausubel explains that building enough wind farms, damming enough rivers, and growing enough biomass to meet global energy demands will wreck the environment. Ausubel has analyzed the amount of energy that each so-called renewable source can produce in terms of Watts of power output per square meter of land disturbed. He also compares the destruction of nature by renewables with the demand for space of nuclear power. "Nuclear energy is green," he claims, "Considered in Watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors."

The Ontario provincial government, complicit in deception, has effectively sanctioned the wind power industry to prejudicially reform planning policy, willfully and knowingly, not only supporting, but utilizing industry proffered guidelines, fundamentally biased and flawed at the most basic level. Increasingly, unacceptable human impacts transpire, the aftermath of profit skewed noise and setback policies.

I would ask the Nova Scotia Government to take a serious, long, hard look at this whole industry and take some leadership by declaring the minimum standards by which wind energy projects must abide. A responsible, intelligent set of standards could set the way for the rest of the country! Use the experience of those who have had turbines for decades and learn from their mistakes. Blindly surging ahead into wind energy without considering health and safety factors and reasonable enjoyment of a resident's property is not looking after your constituents - the people of Nova Scotia.

We're missing the point with all these half-baked ideas that will somehow lead us to some environmentally sound utopia of the future. Climate change isn't being caused by too many plastic bags or ignorant car owners idling their cars for hours on end. No, global warming is caused by four things - fossil fuels, natural gas, coal and petroleum........."Right now in Alberta they have numerous wind farms that are producing energy, but that's only when it's windy," Weaver said. "You can't just shut off a coal burning plant when it's windy and switch to wind power, it doesn't work like that."

THEY say the population in Pugwash more than triples in the summer months with the huge influx of cottage owners, none more distinguished than singer Anne Murray. These seasonal residents have a right to be heard just like any others............This squabble reveals the growth of the wind industry in Nova Scotia is occurring in a largely unregulated environment. The province wants 20 per cent of electricity generated by renewable sources by 2013. This means more wind projects are coming and the government should adopt uniform regulations to bring certainty to developers and the public. Voluntary Planning, an independent and trusted board, should be asked to consult with the public and experts, and come up with recommendations on rules to harness this energy.

He's Dr. Reid Bryson, considered by many the "father of scientific climatology," and he's also pronounced on the most consequential climate issue of the day - man-made global warming. His verdict: "That is a theory for which there is no credible proof."