James Lovelock and Silver Donald Cameron
Father of the Gaia hypothesis
, IT's IMPORTANT for Gaia that
human beings survive," says
James Lovelock.
"Our intelligence, if it can be
integrated as part of the whole plane-
tary system, would make ours the first
intelligent planet in the galaxy, per-
haps. What a wonderful future for hu-
mans!"
A great scientist needs great courage
and a great imagination - and Jim
Lovelock has both, in spades.
It is now 40 years since he rattled the
scientific world and electrified the rest
of us by publishing Gaia: A New Look
at Life on Earth (1979), which argued
that the Earth behaves like a single
living organism that creates and main-
tains a viable environmentfor life.
The Gaia hypothesis - named for the
Greek Earth goddess - implied that
the world was far more complex than
modern reductionist science had imag-
ined. It offered a coherent vision of the
whole living world that echoed all our
wisdom traditions and renewed the
human sense of wonder.
Mainstream scientists were horri-
fied. Many still are. But Lovelock's bold
insights, and his continuing explora-
tion of their implications, became the
foundations of "Earth system science,"
the study of systems like the circulation
of the oceans, the maintenance of the
atmosphere and the relationships
among the earth's many systems.
Noted author Gwynne Dyer considers
Lovelock "the most important figure in
both the life sciences and the climate
sciences for the past half-century," and
compares his achievements to Dar-
win's.
Slight, cheerful and white-haired,
Lovelock is now 90 years old, though he
looks decades younger. He published a
new book last year, The Vanishing Face
of Gaia. He and his American-born wife
Sandy spend their summers in Devon,
England, and their winters in her home
town of st. Louis, Mo., where I came
calling one brilliant January morning.
Lovelock resembles a geologist in his
easy navigation of the vastness of deep
time, but he recalls the Enlightenment
sages in his assumption that science is
a single enterprise, artificially split
into disciplines. He has been self-em-
ployed as a freelance scientist and in-
strument-maker for 50 years, largely
because of "silly people who would say
to me, 'You can't do biology, you're a
chemist.' As ifl didn't have a brain."
Freedom from institutional politics
allowed him to indulge his preference
James Lovelock is the author of Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. (SILVER DONALD CAMERON)
C, where crocodiles lived and bred.
Lovelock thinks that's the kind of
world we're creating - and because of
our essentially tribal politics, our ef-
forts to avoid it will likely fail. Since a
less habitable Earth won't sustain a
global population of seven billion, pop-
ulations will crash. Human beings
should plan a "sustainable retreat" to
the Arctic region. Canadians should
prepare for hordes of people trying to
relocate to northern Canada.
Is this inevitable?
No, says Lovelock. Gaia is far more
complex than we understand, and we
do not even know the depth of our igno-
rance. A scientist can only say that this
nightmare scenario is probable. But we
should prepare for it now, while the
world is still a reasonably civilized
place.
The real horror would be if our spe-
cies survived, but its fmest achieve-
ments were lost - science, art, culture.
Lovelock believes we could be the
evolutionary ancestors of an intelli-
gent, post-tribal species that will serve
an aging Gaia as her consciousness.
This is a colossal vision of tragedy -
and redemption.
Lovelock smiles.
"Gaia needs us," he says. "What a
wonderful future for humans!"
SILVER DONAI.D CAMERON
for observation over computer model-
ling and permitted him to follow the
evidence fearlessly, wherever it led.
In 2007 he was "shocked" to learn
that the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change had "reached a consen-
sus on a matter of science.'!
Science is about nature. Consensus is
about politics.
So where has the evidence led him
lately?
Sea level, Arctic ice cover and ocean
algae populations, he says, are the best
indicators of global warming - and
they all reveal that the earth is heating
up much faster than the panel's projec-
tions. Furthermore, the evidence from
the Earth's last hot period, 55 million
years ago, shows that global temper-
atures don't necessarily change slowly
and evenly; they can flip fairly quickly
to hotter or colder states.
On that earlier occasion, most ofthe
Earth became a scorching desert. Life
retreated to the shores of an Arctic
Ocean with surface temperature of 21
Visit Silver Donald Cameron's website at
www.silverdonaldcameron.ca
Sunday, January 24, 2010
A Fall-Down or Lay-Down Zone
Wind turbines blown away; CCI Energy project denied by Planning Board
By Nancy White / nwhite@cnc.com
Fri Jan 22, 2010, 11:35 AM EST
Tools: Print
Comments
ShareThisStumbleUpon
Newsvine
del.icio.us
Digg
Cohasset -
Wind turbines may not have a future in Cohasset under the current zoning bylaw.
The Planning Board on Wednesday night once again denied CCI Energy’s wind turbine application.
Down the road, the current wording of the bylaw on setbacks will likely prohibit a turbine’s construction anywhere in town.
This time around it was not the technical aspects – the shadow flicker, the noise impacts, the visual impact, the ice throw – that derailed the twin turbine proposal sited off Route 3A. Rather, it was an issue that did not even come to light during the first round, eight-month-long, public hearing process last year.
According to Cohasset’s wind energy conversion facility bylaw there must be “laydown area” equal to the height, including the turbines’ blades, and that laydown area must not encroach on a residential district.
Recently it came to the attention of the applicant and the planning board that the Trustees of Reservations’ Whitney and Thayer Woods, one of the adjacent properties to the proposed siting for the turbines, is zoned “Residential C District.”
The laydown area largely falls on property zoned technology/business district, but part of both turbines’ laydown area falls on the Whitney and Thayer Woods property, which is currently utilized for open space.
“We spent so much time looking over the complicated portion of the application, we failed to look at the simplest – the setback issue,” said Planning Board member Stuart Ivimey, who was the sole vote against the project the first time around. “Under the application of the bylaw (this project) simply can’t be done.”
Planning board members used the words “embarrassing,” “unfortunate,” “conflicted” and “stuck” to describe where they were on Wednesday night.
The ultimate vote was 1-3, with three members voting against approval of the special permit application and one, member Clark Brewer, voting in favor. Planning Board member Jean Healey Dippold did not vote because she did not serve on the board during the entire course of the application.
The vote denies the project application, put forth by a private developer, Plymouth-based CCI-Energy, which proposed the installation of two 1.65-megawatt sized wind turbines sited off Route 3A on the Scituate Hill behind Graham Waste Services and Hingham Lumber. The towers are 462-feet (or 100-meters) in height, including the height of the blades.
The project has had a long and arduous history with vocal opposition from a group of neighbors and residents around town and over a dozen lengthy (and at times contentious) public hearings. The Planning Board effectively denied it in May. The application, which is the first under town’s wind energy conversion facility bylaw, has been on the Planning Board’s docket since September 2008, but returned to the planning board in early December due to a court ordered remand. Sufficient and material changes were made to the application since its denial and the planning board was ordered to re-consider the application in light of those changes.
The Planning Board, as chair Al Moore explained on Wednesday, is a “quasi-judicial board.”
“We look at the bylaws and act upon them,” Moore said. “When a bylaw passes that is somewhat unpopular, it puts us in a difficult position as we try to follow those rules and bylaws fairly.”
Moore congratulated the applicant on addressing all the technical aspects of the application, but ultimately felt the portion of the bylaw that addressed the setback could not be overlooked.
The Planning Board spent more than an hour deliberating. The deliberation took several twists and turns as members tried to reach a consensus. Several motions and amendments to those motions were proposed and discussed.
Notably, Brewer proposed approving one turbine, the one sited farther away from Route 3A. However, his motion failed to receive any support and a vote was not taken. The board did take a 3-1 vote to deny the special permit (Ivimey, Moore, and member Charles Samuelson voted in favor of denial; Brewer voted against). The vote could not constitute a denial because according to state statutes a super-majority, with at least four members agreeing to a motion to approve or deny, is necessary.
Moore also proposed a motion that would have approved the project contingent on the applicant seeking a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals on the setback issue.
Eventually, Ivimey moved to approve the application for the sole purpose of bringing the proceedings to a close.
“There is no other motion that will bring this to a head, to a termination,” Ivimey said.
During the deliberation Samuelson noted the bigger picture evident in what came to be the ultimate denial of the project.
“The way the bylaw is written (not allowing a fall down zone in a residential district) prohibits wind turbines from being built in Cohasset,” Samuelson said. All the large swaths of land targeted as potential turbine sites are in, or abut, residential districts. “I would support the (Alternative Energy Committee) adding something in (the bylaw) to enable these types of facilities to be built.”
In an e-mail sent after Wednesday’s decision, CCI-Energy legal counsel Kenneth Ingber said the project became “an unintended casualty of that flawed language (in the bylaw).
“The Planning Board went out of its way to commend CCI Energy for fully and satisfactorily answering every concern raised in the initial denial of the application for a wind energy project on Scituate Hill,” Ingber said.
“CCI reaffirms that its proposed project exemplifies Cohasset's stated goal of encouraging wind energy and remains the single best project in the single best location in the town. It is in as remote a location as there is in Cohasset yet still will provide the Town of Cohasset the significant financial and green benefits of a good wind energy project.”
Ingber said the CCI Energy would re-evaluate the situation and determine the best way to proceed.
“CCI Energy remains committed to realizing a wind energy project that Cohasset overwhelmingly wants to see implemented,” Ingber said.
By Nancy White / nwhite@cnc.com
Fri Jan 22, 2010, 11:35 AM EST
Tools: Print
Comments
ShareThisStumbleUpon
Newsvine
del.icio.us
Digg
Cohasset -
Wind turbines may not have a future in Cohasset under the current zoning bylaw.
The Planning Board on Wednesday night once again denied CCI Energy’s wind turbine application.
Down the road, the current wording of the bylaw on setbacks will likely prohibit a turbine’s construction anywhere in town.
This time around it was not the technical aspects – the shadow flicker, the noise impacts, the visual impact, the ice throw – that derailed the twin turbine proposal sited off Route 3A. Rather, it was an issue that did not even come to light during the first round, eight-month-long, public hearing process last year.
According to Cohasset’s wind energy conversion facility bylaw there must be “laydown area” equal to the height, including the turbines’ blades, and that laydown area must not encroach on a residential district.
Recently it came to the attention of the applicant and the planning board that the Trustees of Reservations’ Whitney and Thayer Woods, one of the adjacent properties to the proposed siting for the turbines, is zoned “Residential C District.”
The laydown area largely falls on property zoned technology/business district, but part of both turbines’ laydown area falls on the Whitney and Thayer Woods property, which is currently utilized for open space.
“We spent so much time looking over the complicated portion of the application, we failed to look at the simplest – the setback issue,” said Planning Board member Stuart Ivimey, who was the sole vote against the project the first time around. “Under the application of the bylaw (this project) simply can’t be done.”
Planning board members used the words “embarrassing,” “unfortunate,” “conflicted” and “stuck” to describe where they were on Wednesday night.
The ultimate vote was 1-3, with three members voting against approval of the special permit application and one, member Clark Brewer, voting in favor. Planning Board member Jean Healey Dippold did not vote because she did not serve on the board during the entire course of the application.
The vote denies the project application, put forth by a private developer, Plymouth-based CCI-Energy, which proposed the installation of two 1.65-megawatt sized wind turbines sited off Route 3A on the Scituate Hill behind Graham Waste Services and Hingham Lumber. The towers are 462-feet (or 100-meters) in height, including the height of the blades.
The project has had a long and arduous history with vocal opposition from a group of neighbors and residents around town and over a dozen lengthy (and at times contentious) public hearings. The Planning Board effectively denied it in May. The application, which is the first under town’s wind energy conversion facility bylaw, has been on the Planning Board’s docket since September 2008, but returned to the planning board in early December due to a court ordered remand. Sufficient and material changes were made to the application since its denial and the planning board was ordered to re-consider the application in light of those changes.
The Planning Board, as chair Al Moore explained on Wednesday, is a “quasi-judicial board.”
“We look at the bylaws and act upon them,” Moore said. “When a bylaw passes that is somewhat unpopular, it puts us in a difficult position as we try to follow those rules and bylaws fairly.”
Moore congratulated the applicant on addressing all the technical aspects of the application, but ultimately felt the portion of the bylaw that addressed the setback could not be overlooked.
The Planning Board spent more than an hour deliberating. The deliberation took several twists and turns as members tried to reach a consensus. Several motions and amendments to those motions were proposed and discussed.
Notably, Brewer proposed approving one turbine, the one sited farther away from Route 3A. However, his motion failed to receive any support and a vote was not taken. The board did take a 3-1 vote to deny the special permit (Ivimey, Moore, and member Charles Samuelson voted in favor of denial; Brewer voted against). The vote could not constitute a denial because according to state statutes a super-majority, with at least four members agreeing to a motion to approve or deny, is necessary.
Moore also proposed a motion that would have approved the project contingent on the applicant seeking a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals on the setback issue.
Eventually, Ivimey moved to approve the application for the sole purpose of bringing the proceedings to a close.
“There is no other motion that will bring this to a head, to a termination,” Ivimey said.
During the deliberation Samuelson noted the bigger picture evident in what came to be the ultimate denial of the project.
“The way the bylaw is written (not allowing a fall down zone in a residential district) prohibits wind turbines from being built in Cohasset,” Samuelson said. All the large swaths of land targeted as potential turbine sites are in, or abut, residential districts. “I would support the (Alternative Energy Committee) adding something in (the bylaw) to enable these types of facilities to be built.”
In an e-mail sent after Wednesday’s decision, CCI-Energy legal counsel Kenneth Ingber said the project became “an unintended casualty of that flawed language (in the bylaw).
“The Planning Board went out of its way to commend CCI Energy for fully and satisfactorily answering every concern raised in the initial denial of the application for a wind energy project on Scituate Hill,” Ingber said.
“CCI reaffirms that its proposed project exemplifies Cohasset's stated goal of encouraging wind energy and remains the single best project in the single best location in the town. It is in as remote a location as there is in Cohasset yet still will provide the Town of Cohasset the significant financial and green benefits of a good wind energy project.”
Ingber said the CCI Energy would re-evaluate the situation and determine the best way to proceed.
“CCI Energy remains committed to realizing a wind energy project that Cohasset overwhelmingly wants to see implemented,” Ingber said.
CPV and Skypower
CPV Canada Receives Court Approval to Purchase the Wind Portfolio of the Former SkyPower Corporation
Press Release Source: CPV Canada Development ULC On Tuesday January 19, 2010, 3:33 pm EST
TORONTO, Jan. 19 /CNW/ - CPV Canada Development ULC ("CPV") announced today that it has received approval from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice pursuant to the Companies Creditor Arrangement Act to complete its acquisition of the wind development portfolio of the wind energy company Interwind - which was formerly part of SkyPower's renewable generation and development business. Closing is anticipated to take place the week of February 8.
"We are delighted the court, creditors and Interwind management have accepted our offer as the best way to move forward Interwind's portfolio of renewable energy projects," said Sean Finnerty, CPV Sr. Vice President. "CPV is committed to growing our portfolio of renewable energy projects in Canada and help build a bridge to a sustainable energy future."
CPV Canada Development ULC, an affiliate of Competitive Power Ventures, Inc., is advancing a broad portfolio of wind and natural-gas generation projects across North America. Led by a blue chip management team and the financial backing of the investment fund Warburg Pincus, CPV is fast becoming a leader in the development of renewable energy.
For more information about the project and CPV please go to www.cpv.com.
About CPV
CPV is comprised of three main business lines: Wind Generation Development, Asset Management, and Thermal Generation Development.
(x) Wind Generation Development: CPV Renewable Energy Corp. currently has
6,100 MW of high quality wind generation projects under site control,
1,800 MW of which are in advanced development; including over 350 MWs
with executed long term PPAs.
(x) Asset and Energy Management: CPV currently manages the day-to-day
operation, maintenance and energy trading of over 4,400 MW of
generation in eight states to provide improved financial returns and
enhanced environmental protection to the owners and greater benefits
to the consumers.
(x) Thermal Generation Development: CPV is actively developing combined-
cycle and combustion turbine facilities totaling approximately 4,300
MW of generation, in markets with the greatest need for efficient,
reliable electricity capacity in the U.S. and Canada.
The acquisition of Interwind would be a further expansion of its presence in the Canadian market. CPV is currently developing a 400 MW natural gas-fired peaking facility in North Dumfries (near Cambridge), and a 1,200 MW combined cycle natural gas-fired project in the Nanticoke area (consistent with Canada and Ontario's efforts to reduce its electric generation carbon footprint by reducing the reliance on coal).
For further information
Braith Kelly, (860) 713-3309, bkelly@cpv.com
Press Release Source: CPV Canada Development ULC On Tuesday January 19, 2010, 3:33 pm EST
TORONTO, Jan. 19 /CNW/ - CPV Canada Development ULC ("CPV") announced today that it has received approval from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice pursuant to the Companies Creditor Arrangement Act to complete its acquisition of the wind development portfolio of the wind energy company Interwind - which was formerly part of SkyPower's renewable generation and development business. Closing is anticipated to take place the week of February 8.
"We are delighted the court, creditors and Interwind management have accepted our offer as the best way to move forward Interwind's portfolio of renewable energy projects," said Sean Finnerty, CPV Sr. Vice President. "CPV is committed to growing our portfolio of renewable energy projects in Canada and help build a bridge to a sustainable energy future."
CPV Canada Development ULC, an affiliate of Competitive Power Ventures, Inc., is advancing a broad portfolio of wind and natural-gas generation projects across North America. Led by a blue chip management team and the financial backing of the investment fund Warburg Pincus, CPV is fast becoming a leader in the development of renewable energy.
For more information about the project and CPV please go to www.cpv.com.
About CPV
CPV is comprised of three main business lines: Wind Generation Development, Asset Management, and Thermal Generation Development.
(x) Wind Generation Development: CPV Renewable Energy Corp. currently has
6,100 MW of high quality wind generation projects under site control,
1,800 MW of which are in advanced development; including over 350 MWs
with executed long term PPAs.
(x) Asset and Energy Management: CPV currently manages the day-to-day
operation, maintenance and energy trading of over 4,400 MW of
generation in eight states to provide improved financial returns and
enhanced environmental protection to the owners and greater benefits
to the consumers.
(x) Thermal Generation Development: CPV is actively developing combined-
cycle and combustion turbine facilities totaling approximately 4,300
MW of generation, in markets with the greatest need for efficient,
reliable electricity capacity in the U.S. and Canada.
The acquisition of Interwind would be a further expansion of its presence in the Canadian market. CPV is currently developing a 400 MW natural gas-fired peaking facility in North Dumfries (near Cambridge), and a 1,200 MW combined cycle natural gas-fired project in the Nanticoke area (consistent with Canada and Ontario's efforts to reduce its electric generation carbon footprint by reducing the reliance on coal).
For further information
Braith Kelly, (860) 713-3309, bkelly@cpv.com
Labels:
wind turbines Canada
Posting Comments
Once again, your comments/posts are welcome. However they will neither be read nor posted if a full name and location aren't seen. Thanks. Kathleen Gidney Nova Scotia Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
