Wind Energy

John,

You seemed to be purporting to recommend how a GPC candidate can speak to concerned electors.  At that, your first comment implies something of a mockery of genuine concerns.  It made no mention of recourse to "science", on which word besides consider what else I said ( http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-08-28/told-you-so#comment-10726 ),""Science" is a grossly misused term. If you follow the cell phone controversy, we have before us the most egregious example imaginable of "nothing like a scientific consensus", with industry-supported on one side, independents on the other."  It is good to see you say that independent science is what is called for. But remember well that scientists sometimes only look only where they are trained to look, even independents. All dissent must be evaluated. And all data must be included, esp. from ones who raise the alarm in the first place.

Who is talking about "closing down an industry" due to "someone 'feeling ill'"? That is a ludicrous overstatement. (Although considering the cell phone example, enough dead bodies have piled up already, following suppressed research revealing dangers, to maybe go as far as seeking a moratorium until better ways are found.  See one prominent Swedish researcher's exasperated threat reported via http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-22/bioinitiative#comment-10444 ).

On it being a provincial matter: there is definitely a place for federal prescription & intervention even, on all kinds of possible grounds if necessary.  Given what has transpired with the cell telephone & masts issue, I have no confidence in Health Canada & Industry Canada as things stand. Environment Canada should easily be able to broaden its purview to speak to any dangers related to hideous gigantesque wind turbines. From http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-16/it-takes-green-dangers-wir... "Our governments might hide behind jurisdictional & administrative frameworks to explain their paralysis, although who does not think that the industry in question & those who back it financially are not aggressively in the background.  Industry Canada in charge of antennae & even Health Canada can claim to not regulate regarding health concerns, and provincial (& thus municipal) health authorities can claim antennae are not in their mandate.  Of course it is ridiculous.  A law can be easily & promptly put in place to cover any framework gaps, easier even than the industry can install coverage for reception gaps. ("Quick, recall Parliament!" -- remember that "lives were at risk" isotope episode, about which only Greens knew to speak out about forthrightly?)"  Same goes for any threat interpretable as "environmental".  In one country I alreday noted the beginnings of an internecine fight between ministries re cell masts ( http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-23/eu#comment-10242, "Environmental Ministry steps up fight against cellular antennas" ).

Your more reasonable assessment regarding turbine distancing is not at all in the same tenor as your initial comments to Anne, which provoked my comment & tone.  But I very much doubt NIMBY-ism drives people as far you as you say.  Further, "merely" aesthetic concerns are at the justifiable heart -- take seriously what I say on that count, it goes to the problenatic cultural heart.  Also, what makes you think pro-nuclearists are behind anti-wind advocacy in Canada?  It might be so in France, maybe true here, you'd do better to research connexions on this to make your case, it could be importantly speaking to those issues of transparency to public advocacy I mentioned above.

The "why" of a "GPC stance" I fear is often connected to its current clumsy & outdated method of policy adoption.  As I suggested to Anne, reliance on more abstract stated or historic "green" principles when there is tension between existing lesser-informed policy and what one later learns.  As it stands, it is fair to argue that a GPC rep. cannot argue strongly against bad policy that GPC hasn't gotten around to ditching, or in this case, to maybe be more nuanced about.  To last as a party, attention must be paid to warnings I've mentioned regarding populist policy parties like UFA or Australian Party.

The wind turbine health problems are nowhere near as dangerous as the cell mast one in scope & breadth. But that says nothing at all to disregard individuals' reports of ill-being. It is precisely then that serious attention must be paid to act in a "green" precautionary vein, even to the point of braving accusations of hypochondria or psychosis ("The article goes on to mention "psychosomatic conditions".  How about we compel Bell, Rogers, Telus & co. to post lists of local psychiatrists at the base of each cell mast?", from  http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-07-22/bioinitiative#comment-10905, ""the world is beginning to understand"").  The morbid statistics eventually follow inattention, in a society obsessed with bullet hole forensics rather than listening to their own bodies.

On helping "no one but our opponents": I do not like having to use the word, 'green', at all, for a variety of reasons. It makes it seem like a party of too urban origins, it is unaware that green is already taken as a major banner by a major intl. religion, it falls prey to usurpation latterly by "color revolutions" sponsored by clandestine American subversive efforts (even if you think those are somehow constructive subversions), etc.  We're stuck with it, though, for now.  But we're also stuck with values stemming from a whole generation of political dissenters assembled under a banner of that colour, and it makes some sense to express exasperation and to challenge someone by putting quote marks around the colour.  If enough Canadians would trade their polite docility for some pointed activism, we'd see fewer sighs and more satisfaction.