Following is the second part of a letter adapted from one sent to the Office of Ombudsman of Ontario, on November 28, 2016, by Sherri Lange, CEO North American Platform Against Wind Power (NA-PAW). This second part concerns the difficulties people have encountered in getting medical professionals to stand up to the political-industrial wind complex. The third part of Lange’s letter will be posted tomorrow.
The Huron County (Ontario) Board of Health has now agreed to a plan to “investigate” or “study” the health impacts of residents, in conjunction with the University of Waterloo and Wind Concerns Ontario. But questions remain about the involvement of several professors from this cooperating university who have not found meaningful results in their research. Their published conclusions have merely led to yet another call for “more study” and a passing condolence to the “annoyance” that persons feel toward the wind projects.…
Continue ReadingThe following letter has been adapted from one sent to the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario, on November 28, 2016, by Sherri Lange, CEO North American Platform Against Wind Power (NA-PAW). The second part of the letter will be posted tomorrow and the third part on Friday.
Dear Ombudsman Dube, Deputy Ombudsman Finlay, Mr. Pomerant, and Ms. Driscoll:
Please accept our appreciation for the investigation by your good office into numerous complaints over the years, concerning the health, economic, environmental, and legal/judicial degradation resulting from the proliferation of industrial wind in Ontario.
The North American Platform Against Wind Power represents more than 370 groups and tens of thousands of individuals in a worldwide network, and is in daily contact with its European counterparts, numbering in the thousands of groups. From our perspective, we can see that the problems of industrial wind power are not specific to Ontario, as is suggested by developers; they are universal.…
Continue Reading“‘You let me name the people doing the analysis, and I can get you any outcome you desire.’ Cordato told a Cato Institute that cost-benefit analysis for demand-side management programs is essentially a bogus enterprise, doomed to failure, regardless of how carefully the analysis is performed.”
Great wine ages well. In this case, the nectar has no expiration date.
Some twenty-one years ago, a “libertarian economist” from Campbell University got attention in the energy press by popping a sacred cow of market-failure economics, social cost/benefit analysis as a basis for government intervention in markets. The occasion was a Cato Institute/Institute for Energy Research conference, “New Horizons in Electric Power Deregulation,” held on March 2, 1995, in Washington, DC.
In my dusty files, I recently found this writeup from The Quad Report (April 1995) that is reprinted below.…
Continue Reading