Catching another politician lying

Below is a series of e-mail exchanges I had with my local MPP Bruce Crozier.   By the way,  I am not only one of two people opposing wind development  in my area.  
Dear Bruce
Please define what you mean by priviledged information.  If you mean confidential,  my e-mail strictly asks a question that could be asked of you by many other residents in your riding.  The questions posed of you were not of a personal nature therefore I am perplexed at your respone.   This is a matter of public dialogue.     By the intent of your e-mail,  it appears because I am willing to share information with others,  I will not receive  a response from you.   Seems to me you are a representative answerable to all constituents of your riding and these people like myself have a right to know how you will address legitimate concerns.  
Perhaps you would like to send your response via regular post.   I am also willing to speak with.
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 1:53 PM
Subject: RE: Renewable Funding
You write “I will be forwarding this message to every person I know”.
I consider communication between individual constituents and I to be Privileged. Therefore, assuming you would do the same with my reply, there won’t be one. 
As MPPs we are cautioned to use the following. In most cases I have not felt I have to. 
Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited.
Bruce Crozier M.P.P.

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 1:34 PM
To: Crozier_Bruce-MPP
Subject: Re: Renewable Funding
I’m interested in knowing why you would not support turbines in the lake yet find it acceptable for the residents further inland of Kingsville and Essex to be situated at distances of 300 and 450 metres away from WTG’s.  Can you please share your distinction here???
Please get this clear,  I’m not in opposition of renewable energy and have never been.    I’m in opposition of my government spending my tax dollars in manners which are not transparent to the hard working residents of this province as well as ignores well founded concerns over potential health hazards resulting from wind development. If you wish to interpret that as being against wind development,  than so be it.   
Tell me Bruce what clear definitive proof do you have which indicates that residents living within less than 1 km of WTG will be NOT be affected by health concerns resulting from Low Frequency noise and stray voltage, resulting from wind development,  when it is clearly happening in other jurisdictions.  
All it takes is an investigation by this government which you clearly do not wish support.  
I will be forwarding this message to every person I know.  
Rural Grubby
P.S.  If I am only one of the two in opposition,  I would easily bet money that the reason is  due to most Canadians have given up on their politicians because they feel they get shut down by people like you.  Most people feel they don’t have a say in this country anymore and I find that incredibly sad.
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:45 PM
Subject: RE: Renewable Funding
As for the Federal funds, it is my read that there is still $800 Million available and Federal Environment Minister Prentice is quoted as saying “In a future budget, if there’s a need to consider where we are with wind specifically, that would obviously happen at that time” (Windsor Star, February 2, 2009 Page B1). 
The majority of those who have contacted me regarding wind as a renewable energy, on land, have been in favour of the projects in this area. There has been you, and one other, who have contacted me in opposition. 
I support the Citizens Against Lake Erie Wind Turbines (CALEWT) because I too do not favour wind turbines being placed in Pigeon Bay. In fact the CALEWT are on recording stating “Our group strongly supports the development of alternative, renewable green energy sources, including wind turbines, placed in the proper locations”.
The Legislature will be in session of February 23rd and I will be in Toronto. I am sure I will hear of the presentation and Essex Council’s reaction, and i will be interested in it. 
 Bruce Crozier M.P.P.

From: Crozier_Bruce-MPP-CO
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 11:59 AM
To: Crozier_Bruce-MPP
Subject: FW: Renewable Funding
So Bruce are you going to answer me on this one??? You are after all the first name on the list of those I have copied this letter to Minister Flaherty.  
It’s also interesting to note your support of the CALEWT group from Kingsville and Leamington, yet those who will be situated at 300 and 400 metres from turbines north of these areas, don’t even so much as have  one question from you with the ministries  of health, environment or energy.  How is this representing all of your constituents???  
After trying to convey to you the serious health effects people from all across Ontario are experiencing,  I can now see why the general public has lost faith in their politicians.  
On Feb. 23rd the Town of Essex will be listening to presentations on the health effects  and safety concerns with respect to Industrial Wind development.  
I would suggest that you attend.
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 10:43 AM
Subject: Fw: Renewable Funding
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 10:35 AM
Subject: Renewable Funding
Minister Flaherty
I recently read the G&M article “Budget’s Energy plan Assailed” and  wanted to extend my support for your withdrawal of the Federal government’s support for renewable energies.  As a taxpayer in Ontario I am concerned about the expense and lack of viability of renewable energy sources, especially wind. 
Many renewables such as wind exists for one reason alone: its promise to materially reduce CO2 emissions that lead to Global Warming.  In my research on wind energy and it’s fit into Ontario’s Electrical system,  I have not found one piece of evidence that indicates this.
Enlightened public policy, as well as responsible public stewardship, would insist  on transparent, independently verifiable measurement of this phenomenon, quantified over time, with the ongoing results placed in the context of the total carbon emissions produced throughout the province or country.   Rate payers deserve a scientific accounting showing precisely how industrial wind power or any other renewable is reducing emissions in Canada as well as adding viable sources of reliable electrical energy. 
For example, in the case of Ontario Power Generation   do they do hourly, or more finely grained, chronological load dispatch modeling to measure CO2 (and/or other carbon emissions) offsets – or some other realtime non falsifiable method, since the reduction of carbon emissions is now mandated? If not, why not? What are the thermal/financial costs, moreover, of integrating wind volatility, since wind variability is in addition to existing demand fluctuations? 
I also believe we need scientific evidence that shows that renewables produce the kind of capacity value that would justify the decommisioning of high powered generating units such as is proposed by the Pembina Institute, Greenpeace, Suzuki foundation etc.  In their publication “Renewable is Doable – Plugging Ontario into a Green Future” Nov. 2008
the authors  insist that ” OPA  has given the government an unpalatable choice: rebuild old reactors at high cost and high risk or build new nuclear plants by 2020. Both options increase fossil generation until reactors are refurbished or built, resulting in the risk of higher greenhouse gas emissions. There is a better option: Replace these aged nuclear reactors with quick-to-deploy green energy sources and conservation.”
The public can not depend upon such claims from  any industry or organization- including Limited Liability Wind Corporations — since they have an enormous financial stake in the outcome, and their sole obligation is to their investors. Canadian citizens and consumers must rely on the dispassionate adjudication of such claims by those who serve only the public interest (e.g. our elected gov’t officials such as yourself), particularly when an industry desires such an intrusive public presence – as is the case  with wind development. 
If the mandate is jobs than again renewables such as wind are a dismal failure.  Minister Smitherman  is now promoting wind as an opportunity to provide “green jobs”.   This is playing on a perception rather than a reality.   For example in my area of Essex county,  a project of 24 turbines is promising 60 new jobs. These jobs will be in the areas of construction of roadways, transportation of gravel and other inputs, and perhaps security.  These are all short term and low paying.  The longer term jobs  in turbine maintenance, fabrication and construction,   are always with a firm outside of the area, province or even country which in turn are being funded with Ontario tax dollars. 
Let me close by saying that I believe the gov’t iniative to support research to improve and find new sources of renewables with local firms and universities is much more promising.  New ideas are coming out every month with technologies that capture renewables in completely different ways.  In the meantime I believe we can gain on our environmental impacts by managing our limited resources wisely with conservation measures, improved nuclear and clean coal technologies. Eg. not one coal generated plant in Ontario has all of the proper scrubbers.  If GHG emissions to combat Climate Change is  truly the thrust of all this, than simple measures such as a proper scrubber seems to be a logical first step.  
In closing,  I would like to  thank you again for taking the time to question the funding of renewables and in the process of further review may I recommend that you take into consideration:
1) a more comprehensive review of the impacts these developments can have on , people, environment, and resources.
2) that the renewable source of energy be a scientifically sound solution to global warming
3) that the renewable is a commercially viable source of energy on its own.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s