Author: 1957chev

Liberals Desperate to Deflect Blame!  

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

EXPOSING LIBERAL HALF-TRUTHS —

THE HARRIS HOSPITAL CLOSURE MYTH

Burlington Post — September 2009

The Ontario Liberals have quietly pushed their tall tales, saying the PC government under Mike Harris gutted Ontario’s health-care system.

Their tales go beyond spin and enter the realm of self-serving lie. It is most telling that the Liberals never bring this lie into public debate, they merely use it as part of a whisper campaign, repeating it until it begins to take hold among the general populace.

For example, references to hospital closures that I’ve found suggest that in total the Liberals claim that the PC government closed 39 hospitals in Ontario. They arrive at this number in two ways. Several places in Ontario, including Thunder Bay, Cobourg, Peterborough and Sault Ste. Marie, had two aging hospital facilities. The PCs closed these old, outdated hospitals and built new ones.

The Liberals have lied by omission, in failing to account for the new hospitals that were built in Ontario, some to replace aging buildings and several entirely new hospitals to serve growing populations. By my count we closed 12 hospitals in this manner and opened 17 new ones.

In addition, several hospitals located in close proximity were amalgamated to save on administrative costs. For example, Oakville Trafalgar, Milton District and Georgetown hospitals were amalgamated into Halton Healthcare Services. Liberal Party math says we closed three hospitals. The truth is we simply streamlined the costs — the facilities never closed. We repeated this in major urban centres across Ontario.

The truth is we streamlined costs, opened new facilities to replace aging buildings, significantly grew health-care facilities and increased services in Ontario.

The Liberals conveniently forget the PC government opened new facilities across the province to house 20,000 long-term care patients, people who were taking spaces in acute-care hospitals. In addition, we upgraded existing long-term care facilities for 16,000 Ontarians.

This isn’t only about hospitals. If the PCs gutted health care, how do they explain the expansion of nursing positions? How do they explain our creation of home-care services? How do they explain our substantially-increased funding for cardiac and cancer care and expanded cancer care centres across Ontario? How do they explain 52 new MRIs the PCs brought to Ontario where only 12 existed and the addition of 55 CT scanners? At what point does partisan political spin damage our society? At what point do lies like this get punished by voters?

Ted Chudleigh is the Conservative MPP for Halton.

To read a detailed listing of the exact names and locations of the hospitals, see our previous post here…..

HosptialPage-2

The Liberals have lied about the Conservative’s Platform!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

MATT YOUNG DENOUNCES FEAR MONGERING ABOUT PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS

Photo: Ottawa Citizen

During an all-candidates’ debate hosted by Rogers on May 27, PC candidate for Ottawa South Matt Young refuted misinformation being spread about public service job losses. “We’re not going to touch public safety. Our platform makes it clear. We’re going to hire more nurses and more doctors” he said, adding that a PC government will focus on hiring more front-line workers to improve the services that we all rely on.

“There has been a lot of misinformation out there,” he said, adding that out of Ontario’s 1.1 million public sector employees, 50,000 retire or quit each year, so it’s easier to reduce 100,000 jobs over four years by hiring one person for every two who retire.

“You don’t have to destroy our economy to provide good services,” he told his opponents. The PC plan calls for lower taxes, affordable energy, job creation, better services like healthcare, and a balanced budget. This will ease the burden on households and get Ontario businesses back to the province.

Rogers is re-broadcasting the debate on Monday June 2 at 10:00 a.m., Tuesday June 3 at 8 p.m., and Sunday June 8 at 6 p.m.

Two other debates are scheduled:

– Canterbury All-Candidates Debate: all candidates’ debate at Hillcrest High School this Thursday, May 29th, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m

– Ottawa Muslim Coordinating Council: all-candidates’ debate at the Jim Durrell Recreation Centre on Walkley Road on Monday, June 2nd from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m.

Please share this page with your friends and family on Facebook and Twitter. Let’s all work with Matt for a better Ontario.

U.K. Villagers Willing to Have Solar Panels, Rather than Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Haslington villagers welcome plans for 46,500

solar panels – if it stops wind farm being built

By The Sentinel  |  Posted: May 28, 2014

VILLAGERS have welcomed plans to install 46,500 solar panels in two fields to power about 3,700 homes – if it stops a wind farm being built at the site.

TGC Renewables plans to install 31,460 panels on 17.5 hectares of farmland off Maw Lane, Haslington, and 15,080 panels on 9.7 hectares off Clay Lane.

The equipment will stand just under three metres high and could take between two to three months to set up.

If approval is granted TGC hopes to have the panels in place by 2015. They have a 40-year life span but the firm is asking to use the field for only 25 years.

It has offered Haslington Parish Council £1,000 per year for each megawatt of power generated in the first 10 years

If both sites – which could generate 14.2 megawatts – go ahead, the council could receive up to £14,000 per year.

Yesterday, families visited Yoxall Village Hall to view the proposals.

Barrie Hacking, of Newtons Crescent, Winterley, said: “After looking at the plans I am happy in principle and would prefer it to a wind farm.”

Karen Harding, aged 38, of Winterley, said: “It is important that renewable energy is put into place.”

TGC leases lower grade land from farmers and landowners and pays them ‘higher than the average pasture rental rates’.

The company says animals will be able to graze on the fields when the panels are installed.

James Jamieson, senior town planner for TGC, which runs more than a dozen sites across the country, attended Tuesday’s consultation to discuss the plans with residents.

He said: “There’s a big demand for power in the Crewe area and the power created at these two sites will be sent to local houses.

“The great thing about these sites is that there are not many houses nearby and we will not have to move any hedges or trees.

“The technology has improved in the last few years so the panels will even work during a winter’s day. Also, the projects provide additional revenue for farmers.”

Haslington Parish Council chairman Richard Hovey said the solar farm would benefit the village.

He said: “The panels should be no higher than 10 feet so they will be screened by hedges.

“If both of the two sites were built they would power all of Haslington which has just over 2,500 houses.

“Personally I think it looks like a good idea. We have not come across any flaws yet and it will make the village more sustainable.”

A final decision will be made by Cheshire East Council when plans have been submitted.

Read more: http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Haslington-villagers-welcome-plans-46-000-solar/story-21153177-detail/story.html#ixzz33442pQpF
Read more at http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Haslington-villagers-welcome-plans-46-000-solar/story-21153177-detail/story.html#eROOS3AM2umSUVyQ.99

Ohio Puts Brakes On Green Energy “Targets”! Finally!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

 

Posted: 4:04 p.m. Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Ohio House passes green energy freeze

Bill puts a hold on standards adopted five years ago.

Sponsored Links

By Laura A. Bischoff

Columbus bureau

Columbus —

A controversial bill moving swiftly through the GOP-controlled General Assembly would put a hold on green energy standards and set the stage for dismantling an energy law that took effect just five years ago.

After more than an hour of passionate debate, the Ohio House voted Wednesday 53-38 in favor of Senate Bill 310, which calls for freezing renewable energy benchmarks and energy conservation measures for the next two years. The vote fell largely along partisan lines with Democrats opposing the bill and Republicans supporting it. State Rep. Ross McGregor, R-Springfield, was among a handful of Republicans to vote no.

The Ohio Senate then quickly voted 21-11 in favor of the House changes. State Sen. Bill Beagle, R-Tipp City, opposed the bill and the House changes.

A law passed in 2008 during the Strickland administration requires utilities to get 12.5 percent of their electricity from renewable sources and assist customers in reducing energy usage by 22 percent by 2025. The law proscribes benchmarks to hit between now and 2025.

Senate Bill 310 would freeze those requirements at current levels for two years while a legislative committee studies the issues. It would also eliminate a requirement that utilities obtain half of their renewable energy from in-state sources.

Ted Ford, president and chief executive of Ohio Advanced Energy Economy, said in a written statement: “Ohio is poised to become the first state in the nation to move backwards on renewable energy and energy efficiency standards. This despite the fact that data from public filings of utility companies themselves show that these standards are saving money for customers.”

“The two-year freeze clearly sends a message to investors that this market is uncertain,” said Dayna Baird, lobbyist for the American Wind Association. She added that the mandate that 50 percent of renewable energy come from Ohio has been driving investment in wind farms in the state. Tossing out the mandate before the study group gets underway is “illogical,” she said.

The bill has divided business groups. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the NFIB Ohio are behind it but opponents include the Ohio Manufacturers Association, Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, AARP Ohio, Honda of America and environmental groups. Utility companies did not testify on the bill in the House or Senate.

Eric Burkland, president of the Ohio Manufacturer’s Association, issued a letter to House members urging a no vote. “The inevitable outcome…will be higher electricity costs for business and residential customers,” he said.

Proponents of the freeze say adhering to the benchmarks will lead to rate spikes. They also say conditions have changed since the standards were put in place. Natural gas prices have gone down and the state has seen new shale oil and natural gas discoveries.

State Rep. Peter Stautberg, R-Anderson Twp., said the mandates are “simply not achievable or sustainable” and that Ohioans don’t need anyone to tell them that turning off the lights when they leave a room will cut their energy usage.

Opponents, which include environmental groups, clean energy business interests and some manufacturers, say the renewable energy and conservation benchmarks set in the 2008 law have already saved utility customers more than $1 billion on their bills, slashed pollution and avoided the need for costly power plant construction.

State Rep. Mike Foley, D-Cleveland, and other Democrats scolded supporters of the bill, saying that abandoning renewable energy standards is environmentally irresponsible given the evidence of climate change. “This is a legacy vote. It’s a vote that we’ll all be judged on for years to come,” Foley said.

Republicans in the Ohio Senate initially wanted to scrap the renewable energy standards entirely.

Backers of the Buckeye Wind Farm in Champaign County have warned that the move to put the brakes on renewable energy requirements will chill green energy investment in Ohio and make it tougher to sell wind power in Ohio.

Seventy-percent of Ohio’s electricity is generated using coal, 16 percent comes from natural gas and 12 percent is from nuclear generation. Very little is generated from hydroelectric, solar and wind power.

Under current energy law, utilties must:

  • Buy 12.5 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2025
  • Meet benchmarks along the way
  • Help customers reduce energy usage by 22 percent by 2025
  • Get half of their green energy from in-state sources by 2025

Senate Bill 310 would:

  • Freeze the renewable standards requirements at current levels for two years
  • Set up a legislative study committee
  • Eliminate the requirement that half of green energy must come from Ohio sources
  • Allow large industrial customers to opt out of the conservation requirements and self-report efforts made to cut energy use.

Ontario Pension Plan….another cash cow for Liberals?

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Philip Cross: Ontario’s proposed pension

plan is riddled with faulty assumptions!

Philip Cross, Special to Financial Post | May 27, 2014 | Last Updated:May 28 8:16 AM ET

Simply asking people if they’d like to save more does not, by itself, demonstrate insufficient savings.

FotoliaSimply asking people if they’d like to save more does not, by itself, demonstrate insufficient saving

Traditionally Ontarians have one of the highest personal saving rates in the country

The Ontario government’s proposal to supplement the CPP with its own compulsory pension plan is based on a series of faulty assumptions.

A fundamental but unproven assumption is that people are not saving enough for their retirement. Another faulty assumption is that workers can’t make the link between insufficient saving and retirement, and unwittingly retire without enough to secure their retirement – people behave as if they’re richer than they really are, a self-delusion that only exists in economic models. A third assumption is that governments can mandate higher household saving, when the evidence is that other savings fall when government raises mandatory public pension taxes.

The government assumes that large pension plans always generate higher returns and minimize risk, although Quebec’s public pension plan demonstrates just the opposite. It is also assumed that investment is currently constrained by a lack of saving, and any increase in saving will boost investment. Finally, there is an assumption that higher investment automatically boosts productivity. All of these assumptions are questionable if not downright incorrect.

It is ironic that Ontario stresses that people are not saving enough when traditionally Ontarians have one of the highest personal saving rates in the country. From 1990 to 2008, Ontario’s personal saving rate was always higher than the rest of Canada. After the 2008 recession, Ontario more than doubled its saving rate to 6.8%, much higher than the 4.4% rate elsewhere in Canada.

Related

The household saving rate in Ontario uncharacteristically has returned to the national average, reflecting the pressure on households to stretch every dollar to sustain their living standard. This squeeze on household finances exists despite lower interest rates, which saved about 2% of income from servicing debt. However, income growth has been so weak in Ontario that people had to lower saving to maintain consumption.

It isn’t that Ontarians lack sufficient income to save after making their everyday expenses, the government believes. Rather, Ontarians don’t save more due to the same lack of discipline in managing finances that the government displays. To support its case, the budget cites polls of people wishing they could save more. Of course, the vast majority of people, if asked, would also say they would like better homes and cars, more travel and entertainement and so on. Simply asking people if they’d like to save more does not, by itself, demonstrate insufficient savings.

The underlying problem in Ontario is that real per capita incomes fell over the last two years, their first such declines since the early 1990s. The squeeze on household incomes means saving more would require cutting back on spending, a logic that households in Ontario seem to understand better than their government. In such an environment, raising mandatory saving will not boost household saving, as people will reduce other forms of saving (like RRSPs) to maintain their standard of living. This is what happened in the late 1990s, the last time mandatory pension taxes were increased.

The ideal scenario is stronger income and job growth, which would allow both spending and saving to increase. Instead, the higher taxes required for the Ontario pension plan will depress household income and spending. The Ontario Budget glosses over the implication of employees paying 3.8 percentage points more on nearly twice as much income as the current CPP. It will cost individuals up to $3,420 a year, or nearly $7,000 for a working couple. About three million Ontario workers will be affected.

The government believes that more saving would benefit the economy by increasing investment, despite no evidence that investment is currently limited by a lack of saving. In fact, firms have increased their saving substantially over the past two decades. Given the high internal saving of firms, how would more household saving increase business investment? A lack of profitable opportunities has discouraged business investment, not a lack of funds. It is noteworthy that investment has floundered the most in Ontario and Quebec, where a hostile environment to business has prevailed. Large government deficits also inhibit investment, since they promise unknown but inevitable tax hikes and spending cuts in the future.

There are also several flaws in the design of the management of the Ontario pension plan’s assets. Because the fund will be very large, its investments necessarily will be concentrated in fewer areas than individual investors would make on their own. This exposes the fund to the risk of a spectacularly poor investment decision, as happened to the Quebec Pension Plan in 2007, potentially offsetting whatever efficiences are gained from lower management costs.

The fundamental problem behind the Ontario government’s thinking about all economic problems – whether a perceived lack of saving, low business investment or changing the distribution of income – is that it has forgotten how rapid economic growth addresses all these problems without pitting one group against another over the table scraps left from meagre economic growth. Higher growth also would reduce the government deficit, the largest contribution to higher saving the Ontario government can make. It is time for Ontario to adopt policies that encourage growth.

Philip Cross is the former Chief Economic Analyst at Statistics Canada and the author of the Fraser Institute’s evaluation of the proposed Ontario Pension Plan.

  • Find a

The Promise of an abundance, of “Green Jobs”, was just another “Green Lie!”

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

1) Germany’s Green Jobs Miracle Collapses
Die Welt, 26 May 2014

Daniel Wetzel

Renewable energy was supposed to create tens of thousands of green jobs. Yet despite three-digit Euro billions of subsidies, the number of jobs is falling rapidly. Seven out of ten jobs will only remain as long as the subsidies keep flowing.

Rund 70 Prozent der Beschäftigung im Bereich erneuerbare Energien ist vom EEG abhängig

The subsidisation of renewable energy has not led to a significant, sustainable increase in jobs. According to recent figures from the German Government, the gross employment in renewable energy decreased by around seven per cent to 363,100 in 2013.

Counting the employees in government agencies and academic institution too, renewable energy creates work for about 370,000 people.

This means, however, that only to about 0.86 percent of the nearly 42 million workers, which are employed in Germany, work in the highly subsidized sector of renewable energy. Much of this employment is limited to the maintenance and operation of existing facilities.

Further job cuts expected

In the core of the industry, the production of renewable energy systems, only 230,800 people were employed last year: a drop of 13 percent within one year, which is primarily due to the collapse of the German solar industry.

There is no improvement in sight, according to the recent report by the Federal Government. It says: “Overall, a further decline of employees will probably be observed in the renewable energies sector this and next year.”

15 years after the start of green energy subsidies through the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), the vast majority of jobs from in this sector are still dependent on subsidies.

Hardly any self-supporting jobs in Green energy

According to official figures from the Federal Government, 70% of gross employment was due to the EEG last year. Although this is a slight decrease compared to 2012, seven out of ten jobs in the eco-energy sector are still subsidized by the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG).

Around 137,800 employees work in the wind sector which was the only eco-energy sector, besides geothermal, that increased employment. About 56,000 employees in photovoltaic sector depend on EEG payments.

Investments drop by 20 percent

Subsidies for the generation of green electricity have been paid for almost 15 years and have piled up into a three-digit billion sum, which has to be paid over 20 years by electricity consumers through their electricity bills. This year alone, consumers must subsidize the production of green electricity to the tune of around 20 billion Euros. A lasting effect on the labour market is not obvious.

The report, “Gross employment in renewable energy sources in Germany in 2013″, commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Economy and Energy, was jointly written by the institutes DLR, DIW , STW , GWS and Prognos.  According to the researchers, the cause of the decrease in employment is the declining investments in green energy systems.

The investments in renewable energy sources in Germany fell by a fifth, to 16.09 billion Euros in the past year. Only about half as many solar panels were installed in Germany as the year before. Investment in biomass plants and solar thermal dropped as well.

“Nothing left from the job miracle“

The researchers do not expect that the production of high quality green energy systems will still lead to a job boom in Germany. For this year and the next they expect a further decline in employment instead. Thereafter, low-tech sectors such as “operation and maintenance” as well as the supply of biomass fuels are expected to „stabilise the employment effect”.

„A few years ago the renewable sector was the job miracle in Germany, now nothing is left of all of that,” said the deputy leader of the Greens in the Bundestag, Oliver Krischer.

The Green politician is sceptical about the attempts by the Federal Government to reduce the subsidy dependence of the green energy sector: „The brakes on the expansion of renewables by the previous conservative-liberal government is now fully hitting the job market,” said Krischer: “Thanks to the current EEG reform by the Union and SPD, the innovative and young renewables industry will lose more jobs.”

The bottom line, no jobs remain

The report by the Federal Government explicitly estimates only the „gross employment“ created primarily by green subsidies. The same subsidies, however, have led to rising costs and job losses in many other areas, such as heavy industry and commerce as well as conventional power plant operators.  For a net analysis, the number of jobs that have been prevented or destroyed as a result would have to be deducted from the gross number of green jobs.

Official figures for the net effect of renewables on employment in Germany were originally supposed to be presented in July, according to the Federal Economics Ministry. However, the presentation has now been delayed until the autumn.
Researchers such as the president of the Munich-based IFO institute, Hans-Werner Sinn, believe that the net effect of subsidies for renewable energy on the labour market is equal to zero:

“Whoever claims that net jobs have been created must prove that the capital intensity of production in the new sectors is smaller than in the old ones. There are no indications for that. ”

“There is no positive net effect on employment by the EEG,” said Sinn: “Through subsidies for inefficient technologies not a single new job has been created, but wealth has been destroyed. “

Translation Philip Mueller





2) Reminder: Gordon Hughes: The Myth of Green Jobs
Global Warming Policy Foundation, September 2011

“Claims by politicians and lobbyists that green energy policies will create a few thousand jobs are not supported by the evidence. In terms of the labour market, the gains for a small number of actual or potential employees in businesses specialising in renewable energy has to be weighed against the dismal prospects for a much larger group of workers producing tradable goods in the rest of the manufacturing sector,” said Professor Gordon Hughes.

Full GWPF report: The Myth of Green Jobs

 



  

Wind Turbines Have a Very Short Shelf Life!! Useless!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Turbines: lucky to last 10 Years

May 28, 2014 by 

wind_turbine_fire

Dr Gordon Hughes is a Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh and a while back produced this cracking study which destroyed yet another wind industry myth about the longevity of their giant fans: windfarm peformance UK hughes.19.12.12.

Instead of the much touted 25 years, the output from modern turbines starts to drop significantly after about 8 – and they’re well and truly ready for the scrapheap by the time they hit their teens. Here’s a story on Dr Hughe’s findings by The Courier.

Wind turbines’ lifespan far shorter than believed, study suggests
The Courier
29 December 2012

SCOTLAND’S LANDSCAPE could be blighted by the rotting remains of a failed regeneration of windfarms, according to a scathing new report.

A study commissioned by the Renewable Energy Foundation has found that the economic life of onshore wind turbines could be far less than that predicted by the industry.

The “groundbreaking” research was carried out by academics at Edinburgh University and saw them look at years of windfarm performance data from the UK and Denmark.

The results appear to show that the output from windfarms — allowing for variations in wind speed and site characteristics — declines substantially as they get older.

By 10 years of age, the report found that the contribution of an average UK windfarm towards meeting electricity demand had declined by a third.

That reduction in performance leads the study team to believe that it will be uneconomic to operate windfarms for more than 12 to 15 years — at odds with industry predictions of a 20- to 25-year lifespan.

They may then have to be replaced with new machinery — a finding that the foundation believes has profound consequences for investors and government alike.

Members of the renewables industry have attacked the findings, questioning the Edinburgh University research and describing them as “misleading”.

Scottish Renewables for one said that its oldest commercial windfarms in Scotland were around 16 years old and that none of them have been decommissioned or repowered.

Nonetheless, anti-windfarm campaigners believe that the evidence should be enough to halt the pace of development and force the Scottish Government to rethink its backing of the energy source.

Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser said that parts of the USA, where the industry is further advanced, were already home to what amounted to windfarm graveyards.

And he said the difficulties associated with the decommissioning of such machinery could blight the Scottish landscape for years.

“We already know that the average wind turbine must be in operation for a minimum of two years to pay back the carbon cost of construction,” he said.

“If the average lifespan of a wind turbine is only 10 years then the Scottish Government must seriously question wind energy’s role in displacing carbon emissions.

“However, the rapid wear and tear of wind turbines comes as no surprise. We need only cast our eye across the Atlantic to see 12,000 turbines rotting in the Californian desert.

“I have particular concerns surrounding the environmental costs of decommissioning and exactly who bears these burdens.

“With question marks raised over intermittency, noise, cost, efficiency, placement and now lifespan, when will the Scottish Government see sense and pull at the reins of wind energy?”

The Renewable Energy Foundation is a registered charity promoting sustainable development for the benefit of the public by means of energy conservation and the use of renewable energy. It claims to have “no political affiliation or corporate membership” and believes its findings have worrying implications for the investment being made in the UK in wind power.

The study also reports that the decline in the performance of Danish offshore windfarms had been greater than that of UK onshore windfarms.

Director Dr John Constable said: “This study confirms suspicions that decades of generous subsidies to the wind industry have failed to encourage the innovation needed to make the sector competitive.

“Put bluntly, wind turbines onshore and offshore still cost too much and wear out far too quickly to offer the developing world a realistic alternative to coal.”
The Courier

California has something like 14,000 giant fans that have been abandoned – erected in the late 1980s they lasted less than 20 years – most were clapped-out by 1998 – before the enormous cost of maintaining them saw them left to rust:

tehachapi-wind-turbines-p1

In Hawaii a stack went up at Kamaoa in 1985 – by 2004 they too were left to the elements:

Hawaii rusting turbines

So, you’re thinking, only in America could wind power outfits get away with leaving thousands of giant fans to rust in the paddock. Well, think again.

The company that wind power outfits use to hold the land holder agreements with farmers is usually a $2 company with no real assets and, therefore, the “promise” contained in those agreements to decommission turbines isn’t worth the paper it’s written on: the parent company will simply let the company with the land holder agreement be wound up in insolvency; and host farmers were too gullible to obtain decommissioning bonds to ensure the clean-up costs are covered. And planning authorities were just as stupid – they could have easily forced developers to provide decommissioning bonds as a condition of granting planning consent, but generally failed to do so.

So, once these things are past their economic use by dates, their owners will cut and run in a heartbeat. Expect to see fleets of dilapidated fans rusting on Australian ridge-lines in the not too distant future.