Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
John Laforet

GET UPDATES FROM John Laforet
 

Since When is it Acceptable to Destroy the Environment to Save the Environment?

Posted: 02/15/2012 12:25 am

You would think if the government of Ontario owned a tract of land that was home to species protected by it's own Endangered Species Act, it would be off limits for development, right? Wrong. In Dalton McGuinty's Ontario, his government is making Ministry of Natural Resources land at Ostrander Point available to a private developer who is now seeking an exception to the Endangered Species Act. The permit seeks permission specifically to "kill, harm and harass" threatened species, and to "disrupt and destroy" their habitat.

Since when is it acceptable to destroy the environment to save the environment? How strange it is that the laws created to protect wildlife, endangered species, migratory bird paths, rare biodiversity, and pristine shorelines are the very laws that are now deemed inconvenient for government environment ministers. These are the people who want to "streamline" (read repeal) environmental protections to make it easier to get projects like this approved.

For example, a magnificent 28 kilometres of undeveloped shoreline in eastern Lake Ontario lies in wait for the onslaught of the construction of massive wind turbines in an area that is virtually a migratory bird super highway. Ostrander Point in Prince Edward County is home to hundreds of species of birds, wildlife rare vegetation, and is a globally recognized Important Bird Area (IBA).

The government of Ontario may grant a permit for Gilead Power Corporation to kill, harm, and harass endangered species such as the Blanding's Turtle and the Whip-poor-will bird. The permit also includes destroying their habitat which is not very green, is it?

Environmental NGOs around the world have specifically identified IBAs as "no-go" zones for industrial wind turbines because of their Globally Threatened Species, Range Restricted Species, Biome Restricted Species. They are areas for the conservation of globally threatened, range restricted, and congregatory birds.

The second permit applied for by Gilead Power is for construction of 5.4 km of roads in a habitat that has been described by their own consultants as having "special features make this site unique in the Site District."

In just over a week, more than 500 individual requests to deny these permits have been sent to the Premier and Ministry of Environment through savetheblandingsturtle.com, a website developed to allow concerned citizens to send a message of opposition to the government in 30 seconds or less.

Ostrander Point is one of those situtions where environmental ethics gets complicated for some. While many believe that wind energy is some form of saviour that will allow us to avoid the real issues of climate change, even some of wind energy's most ardent supporters can't in good conscience support the killing of threatened species. Ontarians have until February 19th to write the government of Ontario with your thoughts on this important environmental issue.

Whether you're for "killing, harming and harassing" birds and turtles (like Gilead Power is) or against this practice, we all enjoy the right to at least express our views to the government, and on a decision like this, the more discussion the better.

 

Follow John Laforet on Twitter: www.twitter.com/laforet

 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:10 PM on 02/17/2012
Have you ever seen a government law hold up against greed, It is a tradition in North America that every thing can be bought. No government law will hold up to the mighty dollar. 3,855,100 sq mi I am sure there may be a more suitable location.
11:40 AM on 02/17/2012
good stuff,unfortunately all govt's now represent corps,not we the people who elected them,they don't even listen to us ,and if they do it is just lip service
photo
Jay from Ottawa
sovereignty sale, 1.3T OBO
12:19 PM on 02/16/2012
Here's something we can finally agree on (other than the fact that Dalton is a joke -lol).

I am pro-wind power, it's still too expensive and there's far too much room for improvement, but I do want to see wind power developed so that future costs go down and efficiency goes up, but there are two places that windmills shouldn't go:

- Close to residential areas (we have oodles of unused space, why cram them next to homes ?)
- Much more importantly, they MUST be out of the path of migratory patterns. We've tracked migration patterns long enough that we KNOW which areas are sensitive, so why build there when we have so much land available ?

But Ontario is broke, and McGuinty knows he's responsible for it, so he'll do anything to raise money so he can turn around and say "see, I didn't leave Ontario all that broke..." ... sad.

Just because it's 'green', doesn't mean we can destroy precious habitats and threaten migratory routes, especially when we have all of the space in the world to build them.

It's not okay to destroy endangered species habitat for industrial expansion, green or not..

On a side note though, more birds die from flying into buildings and skyscrapers than do for windmills, so let’s not build skyscrapers in those areas either.

If this was Japan, I might feel differently, but we’re in Canada, we have plenty of space.
09:53 AM on 02/17/2012
"I am pro-wind power, it's still too expensive and there's far too much room for improvemen­t, but I do want to see wind power developed so that future costs go down and efficiency goes up, but there are two places that windmills shouldn't go:"

It will take only 17 million of these turbines to supply the world's current energy needs. Oil, coal, and natural gas WILL eventually run out - if we don't cook ourselves from their greenhouse gas output first. But wind isn't the answer. For the same reason, cost, neither is solar.

Our best bet is molten salt thorium breeder reactors and deployment of those, if we had a viable design, will take decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
12:04 PM on 02/16/2012
An excerpt from an article in Nature Canada titled Wolfe Island Wind Farm Still one of most Dangerous for Birds, Bats:"reports show that TransAlta's Wolfe Island Wind Energy plant has one of the highest annual rates of casualties, reporting 16.5 birds per turbine and 43.7 bats per turbine, based on the 6 month study period from July 1 to December 31, 2010. Over a year, this would amount to approximately 1,500 birds and about 3,800 bats."http://naturecanadablog.blogspot.com/search?q=wolfe+island
08:26 AM on 02/16/2012
You big silly, birds die from all the buildings and power lines we make. Hardly any die from win turbines.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Warren Yuill
Jesus Built My Hot-Rod
07:06 AM on 02/16/2012
I grew up in Prince Edward County.
Its a beautiful place.
I'd hate to see it covered in wind turbines and solar instaltions.
It seems like most of this green power initiative in Ontario is a scam
photo
john frodo
armchair expert
08:19 PM on 02/15/2012
How you get on here with your astrotruf logic is a mystery, oh no Huf Po Canada is run the by the Frum. the alternative is to continue to be slaves to oil and gas, so no thanks mr lobbyist
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bec DeCorbeau
Le langage de l'invisible est le silence
06:44 PM on 02/15/2012
Harper's reformists thinks that destroying is the solution.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:14 PM on 02/15/2012
Last October , Syncrude agreed to a fine of $3 million for the 1600 ducks that landed in it's tailing ponds when the automatic "scarecrow" system failed. That works out to $1875.00/ duck. Those at the MNR and MoE obviously have been told to look the other way. No such fine schedule exists for wind turbines. If the project is cloaked in the robes of "green" , all bets are off