78
Alberta to ban renewables on ‘prime’ land and preserve ‘pristine viewscapes’
(www.theguardian.com)
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknown
Football (CFL)
unknown
Baseball
unknown
Basketball
unknown
Soccer
unknown
💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social and Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The decision, announced by the premier, Danielle Smith, and utilities minister, Nathan Neudorf, on Wednesday, follows a controversial six-month ban on new renewable energy projects that is due to expire on 29 February.
Alberta’s moratorium, announced in August, left energy companies uncertain about billions in future investment, even as the region, with its clear skies and an abundance of wind, led the country in new renewable projects.
Smith said that the new rules reflect what she called “errors” in the way liability for oil and gas companies was structured in the past – and has since led to mounting crisis in the province as officials contend with roughly 170,000 “orphaned” oilwell sites.
In order to preserve its vast open prairie landscapes and sight lines of the Rocky Mountains, the province will put in buffer zones at least 35 kilometres (22 miles) separating what the government believes is a “pristine viewscape” and wind turbines.
Neudorf admitted there was no “universal definition” of the term, but cited other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, with rules surrounding buffer zones.
Neudorf also said the policy would apply to the “vertical footprint” of all wind turbines – but that other industries that physically alter the landscape, such as coal projects or clearcut logging, would be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The original article contains 617 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Wow, so not only is this a direct attack on renewables, but non renewables that fall under the same situation are too be reviewed case by case?
Wild