Cloak of Green by Elaine DeWar


8807621Editor: This book was published in 1995 and after you read it you will never look at the Green Movement or your govt. the same way again. A massive con of the public by the Greens, govt. and the media. One world govt. is the end game for these groups. Follow the link at the bottom of the page to read the book online, get it at your library or order a copy, but read the book.

Follow your tax dollars.

Now that Elizabeth May is in politics, and presumably hoping to attract progressive-minded people, she will have to live down her reputation, so caustically described by Elaine Dewar in her book, Cloak of Green, about the environmental movement, of being on all sides at the same time.

Dewar first ran into May when she (May) was a member of the Canadian government delegation to the preparatory meeting in Nairobi for the upcoming Rio summit on the environment. Since May was national director of the Sierra Club, as well as executive director of Cultural Survival Canada, Dewar found this rather puzzling. After a little further questioning Dewar came to the conclusion that May had become an NGO interface with government.Rogelio A. Maduro 21st Century Science and Technology : “Cloak of Green … is a devastating expose of the shady finances of the international environmental movement… if you’ve been snookered into supporting the groups that raise money to prevent environmental doomsdays, this book just might help save your money for real causes.”

Publishers Weekly : “Cloak of Green probed the dark underbrush of environmental politics…”

Joe Woodard BC Report : “This is a must-read for anyone interested in environmentalism and the “global environment” movement…this account of [the author’s] determined four-year journey through environmentalism is a triumph of truth over ideology.

Cloak of Green is truly honest reporting of a threatening future.”

Book Description
Most concerned citizens trust environmental groups to fight on behalf of the public for sensible solutions to the world’s most pressing problems. But Elaine Dewar discovered that this trust is often misplaced.

In this book the award-winning journalist explores links between key environmental groups, government and big business. Written like a mystery, Cloak of Green follows the author from a Toronto fundraiser for the Kayapo Indians of Brazil to the Amazon rainforest and the global backrooms of Brasilia, Washington and Geneva. Along the way she meets some fascinating people–Anita Roddick of the Body Shop, businessman-politican Maurice Strong, and activists who run key Canadian and American environmental groups. She discovers some disturbing revelations about these groups and their relations to “green” corporations and government.

Cloak of Green is a penetrating investigative study that challenges many established pieties of the environmental movement.

About the Author
ELAINE DEWAR is a prominent journalist and author with many National Magazine Awards to her credit.Cloak of Green can be read on line here

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Cloak of Green by Elaine DeWar

  1. Pingback: Vers où va-t-on ?:William White : Les banques centrales ne peuvent pas revenir en arrière-et varia | actualitserlande

  2. Pingback: Failure to Explain Why the Global Warming Deception Occurred Continues | Watts Up With That? | SAVIOR.NEWS

  3. Pingback: Failure to Explain Why the Global Warming Deception Occurred Continues | Watts Up With That? – Peter Degedo

  4. Pingback: Failure to Explain Why the Global Warming Deception Occurred Continues | Newsfeed - Hasslefree allsorts

  5. Pingback: Failure to Explain Why the Global Warming Deception Occurred Continues | Watts Up With That?

  6. Pingback: Watermelons….Faux-green on the outside, Communist-red, on the Inside! | the Original "Mothers Against Wind Turbines" TM

  7. Pretty nice post. I simply stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I’ve really enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing for your
    feed and I hope you write again very soon!

  8. I find Elaine Dewar smiply outstanding! She captivates my mind, I`m reading The Secound Tree(sometimes the words are hard to understand),but I can not wait to turn the next page Thank You Elaine for opening up my mind,and to things that my mind would have never concived. Unless I didn`t get a Libary Card. This is the first book I cheak out,and now I`m reading it at home. Because I`m in the prosses of getting my GED, and it helps me so much!!!! thanks again Elaine.

  9. Pingback: Earth Hour - The Scam Continues « Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Wind Farms

  10. Pingback: Earth Day March 29 2008 « Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Wind Farms

  11. Pingback: Global Warming - The Debate Is Not Over « Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Wind Farms

  12. Pingback: Suzuki’s foundation should lose status « Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Wind Farms

  13. Pingback: Snow Job - Heartland Institute « Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Wind Farms

  14. Elizabeth May is an enigma. I can’t figure her out. She’s fought forestry companies over pesticide spraying at great personal cost. She went on a hunger strike to get the government to do something about the Sydney tar ponds. Yes May did help set up this “black ops” green washing network. Was she used like other environmentalists have been used? Did she think that at the end of the day the environmentalists, social reformers and grass roots democrats could ride the beast’s tail and mange to wrestle the beast into submission? Its 35 years since the Stockholm conference. How have the environmentalists made out? How have the corporates made out? What is the state of the planet 35 years later?
    Given Elizabeth May’s past resolve to go into battle at personal cost , I believe she has some integrity. Worst case, she tried to manipulate the system for her ends but the system ended up manipulating her and these activist friends. Now she’s playing in the political arena. Let’s see if she supports grass roots driven reforms of the system.
    When May says these wind tower generators are being built too close to homes, I believe she’s being sincere.
    Wind Power Flaps
    http://www.elizabethmay.ca/blog/Wind-Power-Flaps.php
    NO OTHER POLICIAN IN THIS COUNTRY HAS HAD THE COURAGE TO STAND UP AND SAY WHAT THE WIND INDUSTRIALISTS ARE DOING IS WRONG. NOT ONE.
    Elizabeth May could have perpetuated the deceptions coming from “green” NGO’s who are fronting for the wind industrialists. The Grey Bruce Owen Sound Green riding president (Shane Jolley’s riding) told a public meeting that the Nova Scotia family better get used to noise coming from a nearby windpower generator. He had also been president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) and advocated on behalf of the wind industry.
    The current president of CANWEA, Robert Hornung used to be a director at Pembina, an NGO. Pembina gets contracts to do “research” and prepares policy papers. They sit on advisory panels with industry and form coalitions with other NGOs. When the Liberal government was going to set $15 price cap on a tonne of carbon on tar sands operators (13 cents a barrel) Gordon Lambert, VP of sustainable development for Suncor said “It’s manageable”.
    ***Robert Hornung, head of the Pembina Institute, hailed Suncor’s oilsands position. It’s proof, he said, that “all the scenarios of economic armageddon are now a fantasy.” Then he said “It’s absolutely fair to say that if oilsands producers can live with this, it’s hard to imagine anybody who can’t.”*** Now that’s something: An environmental group cheering on government subsidy of an oilsands industry that produces more carbon than others. Has the environmental movement sunk so low over Kyoto that it can’t even imagine why anybody might not think this is such a hot idea?***
    http://canadiangrassroots.ca/articles.inc.php?command=show&ID=3266
    The National Round table has just recommended a carbon price of $75 /tonne. That means Canadians taxpayers would have had to pick up the difference on 40 million tones –$2.4 billion annually!!!!!!!!!
    Along the way Hornung & Co. have plugged for carbon trading and meanwhile the industry players have positioned themselves to profit from carbon trading by building windfarms. They make Hornung President of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) and he’s given a seat at the same table where the policies get drafted. CANWEA manages to get the government to pay a production incentive to the windfarm owners .
    It gets better. CANWEA Pres. Hornung asks the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to water down the Ontario noise regulations so that more wind turbines can be squeezed into inhabited rural Ontario. AND the MOE goes along. In beautiful Ontario homes situated on the same property as wind turbines aren’t considered receptors and human beings who live in the homes (owners or renters) are not protected per Ontario’s EPA.
    A place to live and a place to grow. There’s no place like Ontariooooooooooooo..
    **********
    June 15, 2004
    Mr. Neil Parish
    Director, Environmental Assessment
    and Approvals Branch
    Ministry of the Environment
    2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A
    Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5
    BY FAX: 416 314 8452
    Re:
    Sound Level Limits for Wind Farms

    Dear Mr. Parish:
    The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) would like to thank you and your staff for
    assisting our industry in developing sound level limits for wind farms. Our noise consultant has
    worked closely with Mr. Chris Krajewski of the Noise Assessment section in reviewing and
    commenting on the draft guidelines entitled “Wind Turbine Generators, Noise Impact Assessment
    Requirements”, dated May 21, 2004. We are very pleased with the document as it gives appropriate
    consideration for the wind induced background sound level which increases with wind speed and thus
    allows greater sound level limits as wind speed increases and turbines produce more noise.
    We believe it is vital that the final document be published and in use by June 30, as noise regulations
    can have a significant impact on wind turbine spacing, and therefore the cost of wind generated
    electricity, and bids on the Ontario RFP for renewable energy are due at the end of July. Proponents
    will need some time to confirm the spacing on their wind farms prior to preparing a bid.
    CanWEA’s Ontario caucus has met recently to discuss the latest draft and we would like to offer our
    comments on the draft guideline and on the approvals process for obtaining a Certificate of Approval
    for wind farms. The issues we would like to highlight, and have addressed, are:

    • the restriction on the ambient sound level due to sources other than wind

    • daytime sound level limit for wind turbines

    • the use of noise waivers/legal agreements for participating property owners, and

    • the capacity exclusion and response time for review of C of A applications

    Ambient Sound Level
    On the second page of the draft guidelines, reference is made to the sound level limits for both urban
    and rural areas being the greater of specific levels or the minimum background sound level
    established in accordance with requirements in Publications NPC-205/NPC-232/NPC-233. In the
    second note to the table on the third page, clarification is made that the values determined are to apply
    over the full range of wind speed. We feel this is too restrictive and that we should be able to use the
    wind induced background sound level in conjunction with the background sound level.

    For example, if a wind farm is near a busy road, the ambient sound level could be greater than the
    exclusion limit but less than the wind induced sound level at certain wind speeds.
    We would like the wording of the last sentence to read: “The selected limit applies up to the point
    where the criteria based on the wind induced background sound level equals the limit and beyond that
    limit the criteria based on the wind induced background sound level apply.”
    Daytime Limits

    In Publications NPC-232/NPC-205, sound level limits vary with time of day. When wind farms are
    operated on a 24 hour basis, a night time limit is appropriate as it represents the most restrictive
    condition. However, some of our association members have the ability and interest to vary the electric
    output (and sound level) with time of day, either through shutting down certain turbines at night or
    using variable speed drives. We would like to be able to produce higher sound levels during the day
    when the background sound level other than wind induced is greater. Using the exclusion limits by
    time of day tables in NPC-205 and NPC-232 would be greatly appreciated.

    Noise Waivers/Legal Agreements
    We understand that other countries such as the UK allow participating landowners to sign waivers
    that they would not complain about noise excesses above the normal limits. Ontario also has
    permitted excess noise in situations of rezoning residential lands to industrial use.

    In the reference document cited in the draft guideline “ETSU-R-97”, the authors recommend a maximum of 45 dBA as a day and night time limit.

    The text on page 66 reads “It is widely accepted that the level of disturbance or annoyance by a noise source is not only dependent upon the level and character of the noise but also on the receiver’s attitude towards the noise source in general. If the residents at the noise-sensitive properties were financially involved in the project then higher noise limits will be appropriate, particularly if a tie could be made between the wind farm and the property, such as giving the developer first option to buy the property if it came up for sale.

    We recommend that both day- and night-time lower fixed limits can be increased to 45 dBA and that consideration should be given to increasing the permissible margin above background where the occupier of the property has some financial involvement in the wind farm.”

    For our guidelines this would mean that the sound level limit for participating landowners in rural
    areas would be the same as the night time limits in urban areas as shown as the higher curve on the
    table on the third page. No change would occur in urban areas as our limits are now at 45 dBA.
    We have legal assistance capable of preparing waivers or easements that would be registered on title
    to protect future occupants of participating properties.

    The issue of new residential development adjacent to wind farms should also be discussed. Initially
    our thoughts are to use the current procedure requiring builders and developers to follow the
    guidelines of LU-131 requiring them to ensure that the sound level limits are met at the points of
    reception.

    C of A Exclusion and Review Schedule
    We would like clarification that small wind projects under 2 MW do not need an environmental
    assessment or a Certificate of Approval. They would, nevertheless be required to comply with the
    sound level limits as demonstrated by an appropriate noise study.
    It has also been brought to our attention that the review time for C of A applications is 12 to 14
    weeks. We are concerned that this will negatively affect the ability to bring wind energy into the grid
    in the timeframe anticipated by the government. It is vital that a defined timeframe be published by
    MOE, and adhered to, in order to ensure that projects are not slowed unnecessarily. The Ministry
    may need additional resources to accomplish this, as the RFP process proceeds.

    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about our proposals. Your earliest
    response to our requests would be greatly appreciated.

    Yours truly,
    Robert Hornung
    President
    c.c.: Chris Krajewski, Ministry of the Environment, Approvals Branch
    The Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of the Environment
    The Hon. Dwight Duncan, Minister of Energy

    *******************

  15. Elizabeth May is an enigma. I can’t figure her out. She’s fought forestry companies over pesticide spraying at great personal cost. She went on a hunger strike to get the government to do something about the Sydney tar ponds. Yes May did help set up this “black ops” green washing network. Was she used like other environmentalists have been used? Did she think that at the end of the day the environmentalists, social reformers and grass roots democrats could ride the beast’s tail and mange to wrestle the beast into submission? Its 35 years since the Stockholm conference. How have the environmentalists made out? How have the corporates made out? What is the state of the planet 35 years later?
    Given Elizabeth May’s past resolve to go into battle at personal cost , I believe she has some integrity. Worst case, she tried to manipulate the system for her ends but the system ended up manipulating her and these activist friends. Now she’s playing in the political arena. Let’s see if she supports grass roots driven reforms of the system.
    When May says these wind tower generators are being built too close to homes, I believe she’s being sincere.
    Wind Power Flaps
    http://www.elizabethmay.ca/blog/Wind-Power-Flaps.php
    NO OTHER POLICIAN IN THIS COUNTRY HAS HAD THE COURAGE TO STAND UP AND SAY WHAT THE WIND INDUSTRIALISTS ARE DOING IS WRONG. NOT ONE.
    Elizabeth May could have perpetuated the deceptions coming from “green” NGO’s who are fronting for the wind industrialists. The Grey Bruce Owen Sound Green riding president (Shane Jolley’s riding) told a public meeting that the Nova Scotia family better get used to noise coming from a nearby windpower generator. He had also been president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) and advocated on behalf of the wind industry.
    The current president of CANWEA, Robert Hornung used to be a director at Pembina, an NGO. Pembina gets contracts to do “research” and prepares policy papers. They sit on advisory panels with industry and form coalitions with other NGOs. When the Liberal government was going to set $15 price cap on a tonne of carbon on tar sands operators (13 cents a barrel) Gordon Lambert, VP of sustainable development for Suncor said “It’s manageable”.
    ***Robert Hornung, head of the Pembina Institute, hailed Suncor’s oilsands position. It’s proof, he said, that “all the scenarios of economic armageddon are now a fantasy.” Then he said “It’s absolutely fair to say that if oilsands producers can live with this, it’s hard to imagine anybody who can’t.”*** Now that’s something: An environmental group cheering on government subsidy of an oilsands industry that produces more carbon than others. Has the environmental movement sunk so low over Kyoto that it can’t even imagine why anybody might not think this is such a hot idea?***
    http://canadiangrassroots.ca/articles.inc.php?command=show&ID=3266
    The National Round table has just recommended a carbon price of $75 /tonne. That means Canadians taxpayers would have had to pick up the difference –my guestimate $200 million /yr.

    Along the way Hornung & Co. have plugged for carbon trading and meanwhile the industry players have positioned themselves to profit from carbon trading by building windfarms. They make Hornung President of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) and he’s given a seat at the same table where the policies get drafted. CANWEA manages to get the government to pay a production incentive to the windfarm owners .
    It gets better. CANWEA Pres. Hornung asks the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to water down the Ontario noise regulations so that more wind turbines can be squeezed into inhabited rural Ontario. AND the MOE goes along. In beautiful Ontario homes situated on the same property as wind turbines aren’t considered receptors and human beings who live in the homes (owners or renters) are not protected per Ontario’s EPA.
    A place to live and a place to grow. There’s no place like Ontariooooooooooooo..
    **********
    June 15, 2004
    Mr. Neil Parish
    Director, Environmental Assessment
    and Approvals Branch
    Ministry of the Environment
    2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A
    Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5
    BY FAX: 416 314 8452
    Re:
    Sound Level Limits for Wind Farms

    Dear Mr. Parish:
    The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) would like to thank you and your staff for
    assisting our industry in developing sound level limits for wind farms. Our noise consultant has
    worked closely with Mr. Chris Krajewski of the Noise Assessment section in reviewing and
    commenting on the draft guidelines entitled “Wind Turbine Generators, Noise Impact Assessment
    Requirements”, dated May 21, 2004. We are very pleased with the document as it gives appropriate
    consideration for the wind induced background sound level which increases with wind speed and thus
    allows greater sound level limits as wind speed increases and turbines produce more noise.
    We believe it is vital that the final document be published and in use by June 30, as noise regulations
    can have a significant impact on wind turbine spacing, and therefore the cost of wind generated
    electricity, and bids on the Ontario RFP for renewable energy are due at the end of July. Proponents
    will need some time to confirm the spacing on their wind farms prior to preparing a bid.
    CanWEA’s Ontario caucus has met recently to discuss the latest draft and we would like to offer our
    comments on the draft guideline and on the approvals process for obtaining a Certificate of Approval
    for wind farms. The issues we would like to highlight, and have addressed, are:

    • the restriction on the ambient sound level due to sources other than wind

    • daytime sound level limit for wind turbines

    • the use of noise waivers/legal agreements for participating property owners, and

    • the capacity exclusion and response time for review of C of A applications

    Ambient Sound Level
    On the second page of the draft guidelines, reference is made to the sound level limits for both urban
    and rural areas being the greater of specific levels or the minimum background sound level
    established in accordance with requirements in Publications NPC-205/NPC-232/NPC-233. In the
    second note to the table on the third page, clarification is made that the values determined are to apply
    over the full range of wind speed. We feel this is too restrictive and that we should be able to use the
    wind induced background sound level in conjunction with the background sound level.

    For example, if a wind farm is near a busy road, the ambient sound level could be greater than the
    exclusion limit but less than the wind induced sound level at certain wind speeds.
    We would like the wording of the last sentence to read: “The selected limit applies up to the point
    where the criteria based on the wind induced background sound level equals the limit and beyond that
    limit the criteria based on the wind induced background sound level apply.”
    Daytime Limits

    In Publications NPC-232/NPC-205, sound level limits vary with time of day. When wind farms are
    operated on a 24 hour basis, a night time limit is appropriate as it represents the most restrictive
    condition. However, some of our association members have the ability and interest to vary the electric
    output (and sound level) with time of day, either through shutting down certain turbines at night or
    using variable speed drives. We would like to be able to produce higher sound levels during the day
    when the background sound level other than wind induced is greater. Using the exclusion limits by
    time of day tables in NPC-205 and NPC-232 would be greatly appreciated.

    Noise Waivers/Legal Agreements
    We understand that other countries such as the UK allow participating landowners to sign waivers
    that they would not complain about noise excesses above the normal limits. Ontario also has
    permitted excess noise in situations of rezoning residential lands to industrial use.

    In the reference document cited in the draft guideline “ETSU-R-97”, the authors recommend a maximum of 45 dBA as a day and night time limit.

    The text on page 66 reads “It is widely accepted that the level of disturbance or annoyance by a noise source is not only dependent upon the level and character of the noise but also on the receiver’s attitude towards the noise source in general. If the residents at the noise-sensitive properties were financially involved in the project then higher noise limits will be appropriate, particularly if a tie could be made between the wind farm and the property, such as giving the developer first option to buy the property if it came up for sale.

    We recommend that both day- and night-time lower fixed limits can be increased to 45 dBA and that consideration should be given to increasing the permissible margin above background where the occupier of the property has some financial involvement in the wind farm.”

    For our guidelines this would mean that the sound level limit for participating landowners in rural
    areas would be the same as the night time limits in urban areas as shown as the higher curve on the
    table on the third page. No change would occur in urban areas as our limits are now at 45 dBA.
    We have legal assistance capable of preparing waivers or easements that would be registered on title
    to protect future occupants of participating properties.

    The issue of new residential development adjacent to wind farms should also be discussed. Initially
    our thoughts are to use the current procedure requiring builders and developers to follow the
    guidelines of LU-131 requiring them to ensure that the sound level limits are met at the points of
    reception.

    C of A Exclusion and Review Schedule
    We would like clarification that small wind projects under 2 MW do not need an environmental
    assessment or a Certificate of Approval. They would, nevertheless be required to comply with the
    sound level limits as demonstrated by an appropriate noise study.
    It has also been brought to our attention that the review time for C of A applications is 12 to 14
    weeks. We are concerned that this will negatively affect the ability to bring wind energy into the grid
    in the timeframe anticipated by the government. It is vital that a defined timeframe be published by
    MOE, and adhered to, in order to ensure that projects are not slowed unnecessarily. The Ministry
    may need additional resources to accomplish this, as the RFP process proceeds.

    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about our proposals. Your earliest
    response to our requests would be greatly appreciated.

    Yours truly,
    Robert Hornung
    President
    c.c.: Chris Krajewski, Ministry of the Environment, Approvals Branch
    The Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of the Environment
    The Hon. Dwight Duncan, Minister of Energy

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s