Northwest Cove revisited

Northwest Cove at dawn │ Photo: © Rachel Brighton

Almost a decade ago to the day, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ruled against residents of Northwest Cove and surrounding communities who had appealed the approval of a fish farm on their shoreline. The fish farm never went ahead, but their experience, described today in my column in The Chronicle Herald, yields insight into the current debate over the provincial government’s decision to finance Cooke Aquaculture Inc. to the tune of $25 million.

When the chickens came home to roost

“In densely-populated municipalities like Kings County, are there other approaches to renewable energy which are better-suited, less intrusive & ‘greener’ than LSWTs (large-scale wind turbines)?” The question – which ought to be asked before rather than after a major wind farm is slated for development – is posed as one of many that concerned citizens in Kings County, Nova Scotia, have raised in the context of the move to rescind a municipal bylaw allowing as-of-right large-scale wind turbines. An ad hoc group of county residents have canvassed the issues relating to this regulatory reform in a pamphet (It’s About Respect – Wind Turbine Bylaws in Kings County) encouraging other residents to attend a public hearing on the matter on June 20.

The pampleteers continue: “Rescinding these bylaws does not mean that there will never be an opportunity for Large-Scale Wind Turbine development in Kings County. It simply means that no developments can proceed until new bylaws are debated and enacted by the Council. And unlike the original bylaws, any new LSWT-related bylaws will be developed and debated with the active participation of an awakened, informed and engaged public (italic added).” That would fit my definition of proactive, in contrast with the reactive position the county finds itself in by virtue of having passed an as-of-right bylaw before the answers to such key questions were settled.

In my Sunday column in The Chronicle Herald two weeks ago (column here; comment and clarification here and here) I raised the issue of local democracy and energy resources in a way that led some readers in Kings County to infer that I meant they were being “reactive” by wanting the bylaw struck down; my only purpose in invoking the example of Kings County was to contrast a proactive approach to regional energy development (so Cumberland County) with the consequences of a bylaw that inevitably provoked reaction when the chickens came home to roost.

Missing in print

Readers of this blog who care about the connection between local resources, local development and local democracy may have read my June 10 weekly column in The Chronicle Herald on the subject of generating power in the community, for the community.

I wrote in my original column:

“Public attention right now is fixed on the cost of power that is distributed through a provincial monopoly. The simplest and easiest way to avoid these costs is to generate alternative energy sources at the point they are needed.” That is, on-site, off-grid energy sources that can help us break our dependence on a monopolized, expensive, centrally operated power system.

But the key clause – “at the point they are needed” – was missing in the published version of the column.

Some readers inferred that I was promoting community-dividing, as-of-right, big-wind developments that sell power to the utility. That was not my point. My intent was to draw attention to the potential for municipalities to be proactive, through planning, regulation and investment, to set their own goals for energy self-sufficiency, tailor-made for their residents and local industry.