Dear Ministers Guilbeault, Wilkinson and Champagne,
ORA understands the urgency in fulfilling the vitally important commitment the government has made to cut GHG emissions to 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030; however, we will present evidence from independent third-party peer-reviewed studies indicating that an effective path to decarbonization is not through hydropower.
Watch our video to understand how hydroelectricity is greenwashed by Ontario Power Generation as “clean” and “non-emitting” when there are hundreds of independent third-party studies to the contrary. Read our full submission here!
Please sign and share our petition to protect Ontario Rivers and send OPG a strong message!
There are currently three pumped storage projects going through the planning and approvals process, that would add approximately 2,000 MW of electricity to the grid. Developing that same Installed Capacity from small hydroelectric projects would involve 200 – 10 MW proposals that would cause untold environmental damage to dozens of Ontario rivers. It is imperative the province does not rush or over-reach its targets and develop new electricity projects unnecessarily.
Please sign and share our Petition: Hydroelectric is NOT a Pathway to Decarbonization.
The increasing role of hydroelectric reservoirs as GHG emitters and negative environmental effects has resulted in thousands of independent peer-reviewed studies laying out the facts. However, the hydropower industry and governments have done a thorough job of promoting waterpower through a powerful disinformation campaign to mislead the world into believing it is clean and non-emitting while turning a blind eye to the growing body of evidence to the contrary.
ORA strongly recommends that OPG begin the use of drone technology to detect, map and measure GHG emissions within the entire zone of influence of its hydroelectric facilities – in the upstream reservoir, turbine intake, spillway and downstream of the dam. This will ensure that those who have purchased clean energy credits from OPG are getting what is claimed – a clean and non-emitting source of electricity. All data should be placed in real-time on the OPG website and made available to researchers and the public.
In closing, the ORA requests that the Minister finally remove the label of clean and non-emitting from hydroelectric generation. Certification will mean nothing if there is no authentic and verifiable science-based method of reducing Ontario’s GHG emissions. Furthermore, it would be unethical and fraudulent to mislead the public and corporations into believing they are paying for clean and non-emitting electricity when they are actually paying to fuel climate change.
We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, are deeply concerned about the plastic waste and pollution crisis and its devastating impacts worldwide. As responsible ministers for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act – “an Act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health”, we urge you to take bolder and urgent action to tackle the crisis by expanding the single-use plastics ban to include a more comprehensive list of problematic plastics and substances.
When people refer to hydroelectric as clean, it’s usually in the context of GHG emissions; however, governments and utilities often use the term categorically and without caveat or qualification. Using the word “clean” in this context is misleading. Just because hydroelectric facilities are not spewing out smoke does not mean they are clean or renewable. In fact, waterpower has resulted in significant and ongoing impacts on water quality, water quantity, ecological processes, fish and wildlife populations and habitat, and to aboriginal communities. Hydroelectric also makes a significant daily contribution to the earth’s accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) in our atmosphere.
The ORA strongly urges the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) to determine that a federal Impact Assessment is required to ensure that the ecological, social, and cultural effects of this proposed Project are rigorously assessed and mitigated. A federal IA would ensure that the potential ongoing cumulative effects of this Project on the environment, Indigenous communities and the public are fully addressed to ensure a more environmentally and socially sustainable outcome.
After careful consideration of the information provided by the Town of Erin, federal authorities, provincial ministries, the local conservation authority, the concerns expressed in your letter, other known public concerns, and advice from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the Agency), I decided that the Project does not warrant designation pursuant to Subsection 9(1) of the IAA.
The draft Strategy should include stricter fish consumption advisory that will protect the health of people in the Great Lakes basin to reflect stringent levels of PFOS concentration in fish adopted by the Great Lakes Consortium for Fish Consumption Advisories Best Practice for PFOS Guidelines.
The Coalition for the West Credit River, of which the Belfountain Community Organization is a member, wish to inform Mayor Alan Alls and Council (the “Town”) that the questions asked in our 18 February 2021 correspondence were either not addressed at all or not satisfactorily addressed in the final Environmental Study Report (ESR) for the proposed Erin Wastewater Treatment Plant (Erin WWTP).
The Coalition reached out in good faith to the Mayor, in the hopes that he would answer our questions, and perhaps resolve some of our concerns and make it unnecessary to take this matter to the federal level for a review under the IAA. However, it has become crystal clear that the Mayor was not acting in good faith when we were informed by the Town’s lawyer, Quinto Annibale, in his 10 March 2021 email to me, that “all of the questions and issues which were raised and answered during the Part 2 Order request made to the Minister of the Environment Conservation and Parks pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act. As you know the Minister considered each of these issues and refused to grant the Order. Since you participated in the Part 2 order request, my client sees very little useful purpose in answering the same questions again and therefore will not be responding to the detailed questions contained in your February 18, 2021 correspondence”.