The ‘green economy’ is suddenly in retreat in the US and Europe. Why?

Pundits across the world are still trying to figure out why Green parties crashed so hard, which leads one to wonder if they were paying attention.

In February, a stream of tractors driven by Italian farmers arrived at the outskirts of Rome, horns blaring. The scene, which was captured by the Agence France-Presse, was just one of dozens of protests across Europe against EU regulations that farmers said threatened to put them out of work.

“They’re drowning us with all these regulations,” one farmer at a protest in Pamplona, Spain, told The Guardian. “They need to ease up on all the directives and bureaucracy.”

The protests were nothing new. They began in 2019 when Dutch farmers, for the first time, drove some 2,000 tractors to The Hague to protest radical legislation designed to reduce carbon emissions, which disproportionately impacted farmers.

Dutch lawmakers responded in 2022 by passing legislation that required farms near nature reserves to slash nitrogen emissions by 70 percent.

“About 30 percent of the country’s cows and pigs will have to go,” The Economist noted.

The policy was part of the government’s plan to sharply reduce livestock farming in Europe. The thinking was that since the livestock sector contributes to about a third of all nitrogen emissions globally, the government would have to target farmers to meet its goal to cut nitrogen emissions in half by 2030.

So Dutch farmers were given a bleak choice: give a portion of their land to the government or have it taken away. By 2023, some 750 Dutch farmers had reportedly sold their land as part of the state’s buy-out scheme. Others were still trying to find a way to preserve their livelihoods.

When asked by a reporter in 2023 whether he thought he would be able to pass his farm on to his children, one Dutch farmer struggled to speak.

“No,” he said tearfully. “No.”

🇳🇱 When asked if this Dutch farmer believed he would be able to pass on his farm to his children, he couldn’t hold back his tears.

This is the heartbreaking reality of the #DutchFarmers in 2023. All because of Mark Rutte and his totalitarian land grab policies.

©@ongehoordnedtv pic.twitter.com/yS8Y757XiT

— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) May 10, 2023

The ‘Great Green Retreat’?

Farmers are not the only ones unhappy with Brussels’s aggressive war on climate change.

The European Union’s effort to reach “net zero” CO₂ emissions by 2050 has rankled voters across the continent, something political leaders seem to have realized. Earlier this year, The Guardian lamented the EU’s “great green retreat,” which included a pullback on a bevy of “Green New Deal” regulations, including:

Plans to put sharp new restrictions on the use of pesticides.

Bans on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), man-made chemicals that are used in countless everyday products.

Rules restricting new industrial emission, which were relaxed on industries and tweaked to exclude cattle farms altogether.

Calls to relax a pending anti-deforestation law, which, according to Reuters, officials believe could hurt European farmers.

Whether this retreat stemmed from concerns that these environmental regulations would cause serious harm to the economy (and European farmers), or from concern that the Green agenda would lead to a bloodbath at the ballot box, is unclear.

Whatever the case, the reversal didn’t prevent a historic defeat for Green parties in June’s European Parliament elections, which saw them lose a third of their seats.

“There is no sugarcoating it,” the New York Times lamented following the June elections, “the Greens tanked.”

Political scientist Ruy Teixeira described the event as a “Greenlash.”

“In Germany, the core country of the European green movement, support for the Greens plunged from 20.5 percent in 2019 to 12 percent,” Teixeira, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, noted.

He continued:

Shockingly, among voters under 25, the German Greens actually did worse than the hard right Alternative for Germany (AfD). That contrasts with the 2019 elections, when the Greens did seven times better than the AfD among these young voters.

And in France, Green support crashed from 13.5 percent to 5.5 percent. The latter figure is barely above the required threshold for party representation in the French delegation.

Bans against hot showers and swimming pools?

Pundits across the world are still trying to figure out why Green parties crashed so hard, which leads one to wonder if they were paying attention.

It wasn’t just crackdowns on farming. Facing an energy crisis, governments across Europe began to roll out regulations forcing Europeans to adopt, shall we say, more spartan lifestyles.

“Cold swimming pools, chillier offices, and shorter showers are the new normal for Europeans,” Business Insider reported, “as governments crack down on energy use ahead of winter to prevent shortages.”

In other words, instead of producing or purchasing more energy, governments began to crack down on energy consumption.

It didn’t stop there.

In May 2023, months after Germany shut down its last three remaining nuclear power plants, the Financial Times reported that many Germans were “outraged and furious” at a law that forced them to install heating systems that run on renewable fuels, which are far more expensive than gas-powered boilers.

The action was even more invasive than the European Union’s sprawling ban on gas-powered vehicles that was finalized just months before.

“[The EU] has taken an important step towards zero-emission mobility,” EU environment commissioner Frans Timmermans said on Twitter. “The direction is clear: in 2035 new cars and vans must have zero emissions.”

Wall Street’s $14 trillion exit

The Green policies emerging from Europe did little to alleviate Americans’ concerns that the climate policies of central planners are not driven by sound economics. Yet many similar policies have taken root in the U.S.

As of March 2024, no fewer than nine U.S. states had passed laws to ban the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035. Meanwhile, the Biden administration recently doubled down on an EPA policy to begin a coerced phase-out of gas-powered vehicles — even though the federal effort to build out the charging stations to support EVs has flopped spectacularly (despite $7.5 billion in funding).

Despite federal subsidies for EVs, a majority of Americans remain unsold on them, and the sputtering EV market has left a wake of carnage. In June, the EV automaker Fisker Inc., which in 2011 received half a billion dollars in guaranteed loans from the US Department of Energy, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware. (Fisker had long drawn comparisons to Solyndra, the solar panel company that went belly up in 2011 just two years after receiving $535 million from the US government.)

Fisker’s bankruptcy came just months after the New York Times reported on a massive exodus of capital from Climate Action 100+, the world’s largest investor initiative on climate change. JPMorgan Chase and State Street pulled all funds, while BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, reduced its holdings and “scaled back its ties to the group.”

“All told, the moves amount to a nearly $14 trillion exit from an organization meant to marshal Wall Street’s clout to expand the climate agenda,” the Times reported.

Days after the Times report, PIMCO also announced it was leaving Climate Action 100+. Invesco, which manages $1.6 trillion in assets, made its exit just two weeks later.

‘You cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality’

There’s no doubt that the Green economy is in retreat, but the question is, Why?

First, it’s becoming apparent — especially in Europe where energy is more scarce and expensive — that people are souring on Green policies.

As Teixera noted, voters don’t actually like being told what car they must drive and how to cook their food and heat their homes. If you own a swimming pool, you probably want to be able to heat it.

Policymakers talk about “quitting” fossil fuels, but in recent years Europeans got to experience an actual fossil-fuel shortage following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which disrupted fossil fuel imports. The result was energy rationing, something Europeans don’t seem to care for.

This brings me to my second point. Green parties and environmentalists have had success largely by getting people to focus on the desired effect of their policies (saving people from climate change) and to ignore the costs of their policies.

Politicians seem to grasp that their policies come with trade-offs, which is why their bans and climate targets tend to be 10, 15, or 30 years into the future. This allows them to bask in the glow of their climate altruism without dealing with the economic consequences of their policies.

This is one of the most salient differences between economics and politics. Economics is all about understanding the reality of trade-offs, but politics is primarily about ignoring or concealing these realities.

Few understood this better than the economist Henry Hazlitt, the author of Economics in One Lesson, who wrote time and again about the tendency of politicians to overlook the secondary consequences of their policies, which were responsible for “nine-tenths of the economic fallacies that are working such dreadful harm in the world today.”

For a time, politicians were able to ignore the secondary consequences of their policies. But voters are finally getting a taste of the costs of Green policies, and they don’t like it.

“You can avoid reality,” Ayn Rand once noted, “but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.”

An ‘iron’ law

Fear of climate change has helped progressives and Greens gain more economic control in recent decades, but even fear has its limits.

Teixera points to Roger Pielke, Jr., a University of Colorado Boulder professor who in 2009 wrote about the “iron law of climate policy.”

“Climate policy, they say, requires sacrifice, as economic growth and environmental progress are necessarily incompatible with one another,” he wrote. “This perspective has even been built into the scenarios of the IPCC.”

Whether one accepts this premise — that economic growth and environmental progress are necessarily incompatible — doesn’t matter. What matters is that when economic growth policies collide with emission reduction targets, economics wins.

It’s one thing to say that gas prices should be $9 a gallon, as physicist Steven Chu once did, because climate change is a dire threat. It’s another thing to say this while trying to become Energy Secretary, as Chu was while testifying before the Senate in 2012:

Sen. Mike Lee: ‘So are you saying you no longer share the view that we need to figure out how to boost gasoline prices in America?’

Chu: ‘I no longer share that view… Of course we don’t want the price of gasoline to go up; we want it to go down.’

You can call this the “iron law of climate policy,” or you can call it common sense. (Who wants gas to go to $9 a gallon?) Essentially, it’s lofty environmental goals colliding with economic and political reality.

This phenomenon is also conspicuous in Joe Biden’s presidency. On day one, the president nixed the Keystone XL Pipeline (for inexplicable reasons), and would go on to declare global warming a greater existential threat than a nuclear war.

Yet he would later boast that his policies were lowering gasoline prices, and that he oversaw record-high U.S. oil production.

This is the iron law of climate policy, and it explains why the Green economy is suddenly in retreat all over the world.

Not-so-‘green’ policies

The reality is that the Green agenda comes with steep trade-offs, something Europeans, Americans, and Wall Street are finally beginning to admit.

But Europe’s energy policies haven’t just been unpopular; many of them haven’t even been “Green.”

For starters, electrical vehicles are hardly the environmental panacea many claim them to be. In fact, EVs require much more energy to produce on average than gas-powered vehicles, and also often run on electricity generated by fossil fuels. This means that EVs come with their own carbon footprints, and they tend to be much larger than most realize.

An analysis by the Wall Street Journal found that shifting all personal vehicles in the U.S to EVs would reduce global CO₂ emissions by only 0.18 percent. This would do virtually nothing to change global CO₂ emission trends, which data show are rising not because of European or US personal vehicles, but from emerging economies like China.

And then there’s Germany’s bizarre decision to abandon nuclear power. Despite an eleventh-hour plea from a group of scientists (including two Nobel laureates) who urged lawmakers not to do so because it would exacerbate climate change, Germany closed its last three nuclear power plants — Emsland in Lower Saxony, Neckarwestheim 2 in Baden-Württemberg, and Isar 2 in Bavaria — in the middle of an energy crisis.

The move puzzled many around the world. After all, nuclear energy is cleaner and safer than any other energy source with the exception of solar, according to estimates from Our World in Data. Even more bizarre, Germany’s phaseout of nuclear power, which began in 2011, coincided with a return to coal.

Germany’s decision to ramp up coal production and shutter its last nuclear plants is hardly consistent with the EU’s view that climate change is a dire threat to human kind, many noted.

“No less a climate-change evangelist than Greta Thunberg has argued publicly that, for the planet’s sake, Germany should prioritize the use of its existing nuclear facilities over burning coal,” journalist Markham Heid pointed out at Vox.

Meanwhile, in the US, where nuclear power has been steadily attacked for decades by politicians and environmentalists, the Senate quietly passed (by a vote of 80–2!) a bill to support the deployment of nuclear facilities.

These anecdotes illustrate an important point: Green policies are not just unpopular and uneconomical; they are often senseless.

Few understand this better than Dutch farmers, who are being forced to sell off their farms by politicians who have little understanding of economics trade offs.

Reprinted with permission from American Institute for Economic Research.

Related Topics:#LifeSiteNews #NetZero Agriculture Energy feature GreenEconomyRetreat JonMiltimore

Up Next

Alberta government should pay dividends to Albertans from Heritage Fund

Don't Miss

There’s no scientific evidence of ‘human-induced climate change’ causing stronger hurricanes

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

California’s soaring electricity rates strain consumers, impact climate goals

Crime / 2 hours ago

Former UK MP says ‘nothing was done’ with child trafficking information given to police, MI5

National / 5 hours ago

Chrystia Freeland’s WEF page deleted after she announces bid to replace Trudeau

Agriculture

The Role of Satellite Imagery in Developing VRA Prescription Maps

Published on December 20, 2024

Todayville Content Team

Since its appearance in the 1980s, precision agriculture has revolutionized farming, offering innovative solutions to age-old challenges. One of those is Variable rate technology (VRT), which plays a key role in improving efficiency and sustainability in today’s farming methods.

By applying inputs like fertilizers and water in different quantities across the field, VRT helps optimize crop yields and reduce costs. This technology relies on data collection and analysis to create detailed VRA prescription maps, allowing for customized input applications.

With the right equipment and technology, VRT can significantly improve agricultural productivity. Today’s advanced tractors, equipped with built-in terminals and specialized software integrated with a precision agriculture platform, use prescription maps to accurately apply variable rates of water or chemicals based on GPS location and management zones.

Variable Rate Technology In Precision Agriculture

Precision agriculture is a game-changer, moving far beyond traditional farming methods. Often called satellite farming, this approach focuses on crop condition monitoring, measuring, and responding to variability within fields. One of its standout innovations is variable rate application (VRA), which has caught the attention of farmers worldwide for its immense potential.

Why is VRA so important? It goes beyond simply fertilizing, seeding, and applying pesticides. It’s about utilizing technology to apply various expendable materials on and beneath the field automatically.

Farm management software simplifies contemporary farming by combining data and technology to improve farming efficiency, sustainability, and profitability. Precision agriculture platforms consolidate operations, crop health monitoring through satellite imagery, and offer real-time suggestions, enabling farmers to make informed decisions for the best use of resources (through VRA) and increased productivity.

Variable rate application offers numerous advantages for modern agriculture:

VR fertilizer enhances farming efficiency.

Adjusting rates based on soil health and plant needs helps save resources and increase yields. Research shows this method can lead to higher net income and healthier soil compared to using uniform rates: “The net incomes of VR management zone were 15.5–449.61 USD ha−1 higher than that of traditional spatially uniform rate fertilization.”

VR irrigation saves water, time, and fuel while reducing machinery wear.

Applying the correct amount of water to different parts of the field based on soil moisture levels and crop requirements reduces wear and tear on irrigation equipment compared to uniform irrigation.

Studies claim: “Variable rate irrigation (VRI) can increase water use efficiency and productivity by applying water based on site‐specific needs.”

VR seeding increases crop yield by adjusting seeding rates based on soil fertility.

VR seeding adjusts seeding rates based on soil fertility and other factors to optimize plant populations and yields. It is commonly used alongside variable rate fertilization as part of a comprehensive precision agriculture strategy.

Findings show that: “The application of VRS to the seeding of various crops shows positive agro-economic trends, additional yields, and higher economic returns.”

VR pesticide reduces environmental pollution and improves pesticide efficiency.

VRT helps farmers target pests more accurately and use less pesticide.

Studies have found that “VR management zone reduced the use of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) fertilizers by 22.90–43.95%, 59.11–100%, and 8.21–100%, respectively, and it also increased the use efficiency of N, P, and K by 12.27–28.71, 89.64–176.85, and 5.48–266.89 kg/kg, respectively, without yield loss.”

This demonstrates the ability of variable rate technologies to improve pesticide effectiveness and reduce environmental pollution in agriculture.

Using Various Technological Means For Informed Decisions

Applying different technological tools is essential for implementing variable rate technology in agriculture. This includes smart machinery, fertilizers, seeders, soil sensors, geographic information system (also called GIS), and the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) applications for field mapping. Additionally, having supporting infrastructure, which helps manage and analyze info from different sources, is crucial for successful implementation.

Understanding the location, timing, and methods for seeding, fertilizing, and harvesting is key in remote crop monitoring and precision agriculture, where data plays a vital role in managing resources effectively.

This information is taken from a wide variety of data sources.

Sensors. Moisture, soil nutrients, compaction, weather stations (humidity, temperature, wind speed)
Drones and satellite photography. Field hyperspectral imaging.
GNSS. Event coordinates, also points and times for obtaining time-series data
Spatio-temporal data sources. Spatio-temporal specific data (trajectories of agricultural machinery, spatiotemporal points, event points, time-series information)
Maps. Field boundaries, soil type, surface levels)
AI solutions. Prediction of weather conditions, detection of plant diseases.

However, simply collecting raw data is not sufficient. It is necessary to process this information to extract valuable insights, make informed decisions, and enable automatic alerts and control signals for agricultural equipment. Thus, you must have the capability to:

Gather data;
Transform the data to extract valuable insights for precision farming gear;
Upload the data into agricultural equipment;
Retrieve real-time data from tractors, seeders, fertilizers, and other machinery.

By following these steps, farmers can make the most of modern technology, optimizing their farming practices and boosting efficiency.

Use Of Satellite Images In Building VRT Maps

Satellite crop monitoring imagery can be used to generate different kinds of VRA maps for various purposes. As nitrogen is one of the most critical elements plants need, building map for its proper application is a major task.

Nitrogen fertilization maps play a crucial role in optimizing the application of water, nitrogen, and crop protection products.

When creating a VRA map for nitrogen fertilizer, you can choose from various indices that provide valuable insights:

MSAVI is sensitive to uncovered soil and, therefore, is ideal for planning VR fertilizer application in the early stages of growth.

Example: Early in the growing season, a corn farmer uses MSAVI to detect patches of uncovered soil in their field. This helps them apply fertilizer more accurately, ensuring that nutrient-rich areas receive the right amount of input and promoting uniform growth.

ReCI measures chlorophyll content in leaves, helping to identify field areas with faded and yellowed vegetation that may need additional fertilizer.

Example: A soybean grower notices using ReCI that certain sections of their field have yellowed leaves, indicating possible nutrient deficiencies. They apply additional fertilizer to these areas, restoring plant health and boosting overall yield.

NDVI indicates biomass accumulation zones and areas with low vegetation that might demand larger amounts of fertilizer.

Example: A cotton producer uses NDVI to map out zones with varying levels of biomass across their field. They adjust their fertilizer application rates, applying more in areas with lower vegetation to support growth and maximize their harvest.

NDMI is well-suited for VR irrigation by identifying areas that are under water stress.

Example: During a hot summer, a vineyard uses NDMI to pinpoint areas suffering from water stress. They adjust their irrigation system to provide extra water where it’s needed, ensuring the vines remain healthy and productive.

- NDRE helps identify stressed or dying vegetation in the middle to late stages of a season, aiding in effective fertilization strategies.

Example: During the season, a wheat farmer uses NDRE to identify patches of the field where the wheat plants are showing signs of nutrient stress or poor growth. By applying a mid-season nutrient boost specifically to these stressed areas, the farmer improves the overall health and yield potential of the wheat crop.

Field Productivity Maps

Field productivity maps can be created by analyzing satellite images to pinpoint areas with high or low crop yields. By using the NDVI index and advanced machine learning algorithms, different productivity zones can be identified.

Key applications of productivity maps include:

Potassium and phosphorus fertilization

Historical productivity zones data can help avoid excessive application in areas where these nutrients may have accumulated with time.

Variable rate planting

Farmers can apply different seed amounts in various productivity zones to either maximize yield or achieve uniform distribution across the field.

Land evaluation

Field productivity can be assessed before purchasing or renting land; it helps reduce risk and enhance profitability.

Targeted soil sampling

Soil sampling efforts can be focused on key areas indicated by productivity data, rather than relying on generic grid sampling.

As you see, variable rate application (VRA) is a cost-effective method that can save you 10% on planting and cultivation costs based on the characteristics of the soil. To fully benefit from VRA, it’s important to understand the technologies involved, such as sensors, GNSS, earth observation pictures from drones and satellites, and digital maps, which provide crucial data for analysis and implementation. We sincerely hope that you succeed in your farming endeavors with modern technology!

______________

Author Vasyl Cherlinka

Vasyl Cherlinka is a Doctor of Biosciences specializing in pedology (soil science), with 30 years of experience in the field. With a degree in agrochemistry, agronomy and soil science, Dr. Cherlinka has been advising on these issues private sector for many years.

Agriculture

Restoring balance between renewable energy, agricultural land and Alberta’s iconic viewscapes

Published on December 7, 2024

Government of Alberta

Alberta is known around the world for many things – some of the most breathtaking and iconic scenery on earth, a world-class agricultural industry that puts high-quality food on tables across the globe and a rich history of responsible energy development. Alberta is a destination of choice for millions of visitors, newcomers and investors each year.

To ensure Alberta’s continued prosperity, it is imperative that future energy development is balanced with environmental stewardship, protecting Albertans’ ability to use and enjoy their property, and safeguarding agriculture for continued food security.

Alberta’s renewable energy sector has grown rapidly over the past decade, yet the rules to ensure responsible development have not kept up. As a result, municipalities, agricultural producers and landowners across the province raised concerns. Alberta’s government is fulfilling its duty to put Albertans first and restore the balance needed for long-term success by setting a clear path forward for responsible renewable energy development.

“We are doing the hard work necessary to ensure future generations can continue to enjoy the same Alberta that we know and love. By conserving our environment, agricultural lands and beautiful viewscapes, our government is protecting and balancing Alberta’s long-term economic prosperity. Our government will not apologize for putting Albertans ahead of corporate interests.”

Nathan Neudorf, Minister of Affordability and Utilities

Amendments to the Activities Designation Regulation and Conservation and Reclamation Regulation provide clarity for renewable energy developers on new and existing environmental protections.

These changes will create consistent reclamation requirements across all forms of renewable energy operations, including a mandatory reclamation security requirement. Albertans expect renewable power generation projects to be responsibly decommissioned and reclaimed for future generations. Alberta’s government stands firm in its commitment to protect landowners and taxpayers from being burdened with reclamation costs.

“We want to protect landowners, municipalities and taxpayers from unfairly having to cover the costs of renewable energy reclamations in the future. These changes will help make sure that all renewable energy projects provide reasonable security up front and that land will be reclaimed for future generations.”

Rebecca Schulz, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

Alberta’s government committed to an ‘agriculture first’ approach for future development, safeguarding the province’s native grasslands, irrigable and productive lands. The protection of agricultural land is not only essential to food production, but to environmental stewardship and local wildlife protection.

The Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation follows this ‘agriculture first’ approach and enhances protections for municipalities’ most productive lands, establishing the need to consider potential irrigability and whether projects can co-exist with agricultural operations. These changes are critical to minimizing the impacts of energy development on agricultural lands, protecting local ecosystems and global food security. With these new rules, Alberta’s farmers and ranchers can continue to produce the high-quality products that they are renowned for.

“Our province accounts for nearly 50 per cent of Canada’s cattle, produces the most potatoes in the country, and is the sugar beet capital of Canada. None of this would be possible without the valuable, productive farmland that these new rules protect. Understanding the need for an ‘agriculture first’ approach for energy development is as simple as no farms, no food.”

RJ Sigurdson, Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation

The new Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation also establishes specific guidelines to prevent projects from impacting pristine viewscapes. By establishing buffer zones and visual impact assessment zones, Alberta’s government is ensuring that industrial power projects the size of the Calgary Tower cannot be built in front of UNESCO World Heritage sites and other specified viewscapes, which will support the continued growth and success of Alberta’s tourism sector.

As Alberta’s population and economy grows, it is critical that the province has the additional power generation needed to meet increasing demand. Power generation must be developed in a balanced and responsible manner that promotes environmental stewardship, ensures the continued enjoyment of Alberta’s beautiful landscapes, and safeguards food security by protecting Alberta’s valuable agricultural lands. By encouraging the responsible development of additional power generation with these new regulations, Alberta’s government is listening to Albertans and ensuring the electricity grid is affordable, reliable and sustainable for generations to come.

Summary of Policy Changes

Following the policy direction established on February 28, 2024, Alberta’s government is now implementing the following policy and regulatory changes for renewable power development:

Agricultural lands

The new Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation takes an “agriculture first” approach.
• Renewable energy developments will no longer be permitted on Land Suitability Rating System (LSRS) Class 1 and 2 lands unless the proponent can demonstrate the ability for both crops and/or livestock to coexist with the renewable generation project,

• In municipalities without Class 1 or 2 lands, Class 3 lands will be treated as Class 1 and 2.

• An irrigability assessment must be conducted by proponents and considered by the AUC.

Reclamation security

Amendments to the Activities Designation Regulation and Conservation and Reclamation Regulation create consistent reclamation requirements across all forms of renewable energy operations, including a mandatory reclamation security requirement. There will be a mandatory security requirement for projects located on private lands.

• Developers will be responsible for reclamation costs via a mandatory security or bond.

• The reclamation security will either be provided directly to the province or may be negotiated with landowners if sufficient evidence is provided to the AUC.

Viewscapes

The Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation ensures pristine viewscapes are conserved through the establishment of buffer zones and visual impact assessment zones as designated by the province.

• New wind projects will no longer be permitted within specified buffer zones.

o Other proposed electricity developments located within the buffer zones will be required to submit a
visual impact assessment before approval.

• All proposed electricity developments located within visual impact assessment zones will be required to submit a visual impact assessment before approval.

Municipalities

The AUC is implementing rule changes to:

• Automatically grant municipalities the right to participate in AUC hearings.

• Enable municipalities to be eligible to request cost recovery for participation and review.

• Allow municipalities to review rules related to municipal submission requirements while clarifying consultation requirements.