The “Gang-green” has to be removed, in order for the host to survive!

UK’s “Green” Wind Power Policy Turns to “Gangrene”

Bandaged-Foot

Britain’s energy policy is clearly “other worldly” (see our post here) and/or the product of a “finer” kind of thinking (see our post here).

When it comes to giant fans, the Brits’ political betters are yet to work out that they’ve been stung by the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time.

One Brit who cottoned on early to scale of the rort was James Delingpole – here he is at his acerbic best.

Vote Blue, Go Green, Turn Septic: 30,000 Reasons Why The Conservatives Deserve To Lose The Rural Vote
Breitbart.com
James Delingpole
20 May 2014

“Vote Blue, Go Green”. It seemed like such a handy slogan when the Conservatives first introduced it in 2006. Not only would it “detoxify the brand” and wrong-foot the opposition, but it would also remind people of the party’s natural bond with the country and the environment: not just Conservatives but conservators….

Well that was the idea, anyway. And I do hope whoever thought of it has now retired to his study with a bottle of whisky and his service pistol because he bloody well should: this ill-advised adventure into enviro-loon idiocy has been the kiss of death for the Conservatives in their natural constituency the rural shires.

Here is one reason why.

The number of onshore wind turbines in Britain has reached 30,000 after increasing by 13 per cent last year, according to research. The disclosure has prompted suggestions that the wind industry is encroaching upon the countryside by stealth. The figure dwarfs the total that is commonly quoted by the industry, which currently stands at 4,399. The discrepancy is because the lower figure does not include the vast numbers of small and mid-sized turbines that have the capacity to produce less than 100kW of electricity each. The smaller turbines range from “micro” roof-top turbines to those that can reach over 100 feet tall and have been installed by thousands of farmers and landowners across the UK. (H/T to the Renewable Energy Foundation for spotting this).

Now every one of those wind turbines tells a story – one with which, as a country dweller myself, I am painfully familiar. It goes like this:

1. Greedy landowner wants to make a bit of extra money for doing bugger all. Decides to put a wind turbine on his land. It will ruin the view for miles around and upset all his neighbours. But where else can you earn around £30,000 a year (per turbine), index linked, just for sitting on your arse?

2. Sure enough, everyone in the neighbourhood objects to this potential eyesore. Resistance is disorganised at first, but little by little a campaign movement (such as this one which urgently needs your support: to stop a turbine being built where Prince Rupert’s forces slept the night before the Battle of Naseby) is established, which costs all involved an eye-watering amount of time, money and commitment. Still, these efforts are rewarded for, after much lobbying, the local council’s elected members – defying their in-house planning department – vote against the planning application.

3. The landowner appeals, as is his right under planning law. He also makes another application to the council, knowing that it will gain the full support of the planning department which, besides being ideologically in favour of renewable energy, is also following the government’s official policy. Meanwhile, the local campaign becomes more fraught, time-consuming and costly than ever – especially now that an expensive lawyer has had to be hired to fight the appeal.

4. The appeal is decided not by a local who understands the area’s needs, but by someone from the Planning Inspectorate which – again following the government’s official policy – is biased towards allowing renewable energy projects unless there are very strong reasons against. Likely at this point, the greedy landowner will win the appeal and all the community campaign’s time, effort and money will have been wasted. If somehow the community is lucky enough to win the appeal, the landowner will simply go through the whole process again, hoping to win the appeal on the next application he has made. Most likely he will win for planning law on wind farms is stacked very much in favour of the developers.

5. So the wind turbine finally goes up, despoiling the view for miles around, knocking around 15 per cent off the value of nearby properties, keeping people awake some nights with its intermittent, low-frequency noise, and making the landowner his cool £30,000 a year (most of it derived not from the value of the actual power he generates but from green levies added to everyone’s energy bills).

And which government bears the responsibility for these disastrous rifts within the rural community and for the ruination of the British landscape? Why the one led by Conservative David Cameron, which promised to be the “greenest government ever”, of course.

Which isn’t to say that some Conservatives haven’t performed well on a local level. Star of the anti-wind campaign has been my own MP Chris Heaton-Harris, who has schemed long and hard to make his party see sense on their renewables policy. Another hero is Montgomeryshire MP Glyn Davis who is fighting to stop the turbines and pylons currently scheduled to wipe out mid-Wales and the matchlessly beautiful Shropshire border country. In the Cabinet there’s the great Owen Paterson and also Communities Secretary Eric Pickles, currently on a mission to veto as many new onshore wind projects as possible at the planning stage.

But with 30,000 bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes already littering the countryside, it’s surely a case of too little too late. Cameron – a countryman who really should know better – had his chance on becoming Conservative leader to dissociate his party from Labour’s disastrous green energy policies but instead chose, either from ignorance or cynicism, to not just to embrace them but to double down on them.

If future generations wish to stop and contemplate David Cameron’s legacy there are plenty of places dotted all over the country where they can do so. Just above the Warwickshire village of Priors Marston, for example, there’s a magnificent view down over the fields of yellow rape into the most gorgeous Midlands countryside. And bang in the middle of this view, so perfectly central and dominant it might be an out-take from a Wes Anderson movie – is a single wind turbine. It didn’t need to be there. It shouldn’t be there.

Thanks to Cameron’s “greenest government ever” it’s stuck there for at least the next twenty-five years, ruining the view, slicing and dicing wildlife, driving up energy bills, making one landowner richer and everyone else in the neighbourhood poorer. Rural communities are much closer-knit than urban ones. They don’t forget slights like this.
Breitbart.com

james-delingpole_3334

 

McGuinty and Wynne….Same Evil Person, in a Different Outfit? LIARS!

Liars: The McGuinty-Wynne Record
by: Daniel Dickin

About the book
Daniel Dickin sees a clear split in Ontario’s wealth and prosperity. For the first 136 years following Confederation, Ontario was known for its balanced budgets, responsible spending, and prudent political, fiscal, and economic policies. These policies made Ontario the “economic powerhouse” of Canada and the envy of the other provinces.

Unfortunately, all of that changed when Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals took the reigns of power in Ontario in 2003. The 136 years of substantial progress and good governance were thrown to the side in favour of expensive government experiments, reckless green energy programs, record-setting deficit spending, a ballooning debt and scandal after scandal after scandal – along with all the lies to cover it up.

While the average Ontario citizen benefitted under the Big Blue Conservative governments of the 20th century, the only people benefiting from the Ontario Liberals are the public sector unions and Liberal Party elites.

Kathleen Wynne took over Dalton McGuinty’s legacy in 2013 and had the opportunity define her new government. She had the opportunity to get Ontario back on track and set herself apart from the scandal-plagued McGuinty past. Unfortunately, Kathleen Wynne only continued McGuinty’s legacy of scandals and lies, digging Ontario deeper into the hole of higher debt, more taxes, and fewer jobs.

Dickin’s book provides the hardhitting analysis and inconvenient facts that have been public information for years yet never organized into one strong, cohesive argument. This book presents a compelling argument for the real legacy of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party – and it isn’t pretty – they are liars who have covered up the mismanagement and derailment of a once great and prosperous Ontario.

*BONUS*
Get a free bumper sticker with this purchase.

About the author
Daniel Dickin is a grassroots community leader and self-described political junkie. He obtained his Bachelor’s degree in law and political science from Carleton University in 2011. He has worked on federal and provincial election campaigns, including in Dalton McGuinty’s former riding of Ottawa South. Daniel is also a legal and political affairs columnist for the Prince Arthur Herald and Huffington Post Canada publications.

*BUNDLES*

 
$40.95
 

Wynne’s Pension Plan will Eliminate 150,000 Jobs…and NOT Through Attrition!

Internal, confidential government document’s confirmed the 150,000 jobs losses, stating –

  • “payroll taxes would have the largest negative impact on employment.”
  • the Ministry of Finance calculated that for every $2-billion increase in Ontario payroll taxes, 18,000 people would lose their job

Canada Free Press — May 22, 2014

Canadian workers and employers contribute $42 billion a year nationwide to the Canada Pension Plan.  Ontario’s share of these annual contributions is roughly $16.5 billion. The payroll tax will mean 150,000 fewer private sector jobs.

Internal, confidential government document’s confirmed the 150,000 jobs losses, stating –

  • “payroll taxes would have the largest negative impact on employment.”
  • the Ministry of Finance calculated that for every $2-billion increase in Ontario payroll taxes, 18,000 people would lose their job

Ontarians already pay the highest payroll taxes in Canada. On average, families pay $9,970 a year in government payroll taxes in addition to their personal income taxes

The McGuinty-Wynne Liberal payroll tax will increase taxes by:

  • $788 a year for someone making $45,000
  • $1,263 a year for someone making $70,000
  • $1,643 a year for someone making $90,000

Ontario small business has been unanimous in their opposition to this job killing tax:

  • In particular, CFIB is vehemently opposed to the proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, which will hurt small business owners and their employees by taxing everyone who issues and receives a paycheque and does not currently have a workplace pension. “In one of the worst Ontario budgets ever, the government is picking the pockets of Ontarians, especially the middle class, to pay for it.” (Dan Kelly, President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business)
  • The OCC does not support a stand-alone Ontario pension plan, as the plan will create administrative duplication with the CPP, further fragment Canada’s pension landscape, and potentially deter job creation. (Ontario Chamber of Commerce)

 

broke bankrupt

The Media Exacerbates the Climate Confusion and Alarm, because of Their Lack of Scientific Knowledge!

Weasel words about the Antarctic

by Dr. Tom Sheahen

May 22, 2014

Q. On TV I saw that the ice in Antarctica is collapsing, and that will raise sea level and inundate cities. Others reports say this will take thousands of years. How serious is the problem?

What you are witnessing here is a result of confusion between the public perception of the ordinary meaning of words, and the very special definitions used in scientific discourse.

Geologists deal with changes in the earth that occur over epochs of millions of years. Anything that happens in less than 10,000 years is “sudden,” and something happening in only 1,000 years is “instantaneous.” To geologists, the word “collapse” is appropriate for a 10,000 year process.

A hot-topic in the media these days has to do with the West Antarctic Ice Shelf (WAIS), a region comprising about 8% of the ice covering Antarctica. Within that region, there are two glaciers that are sliding down to the sea at a steady pace, as glaciers always do. They comprise about 10% of the WAIS, less than 1% of Antarctic ice. This descent has been in progress for several thousand years, and is neither new nor man-caused. It will go on for a few thousand more, after which they’ll be gone. In the parlance of geology, those two glaciers are collapsing.

If that doesn’t sound to you like your usual meaning of the word “collapse,” you’re absolutely right. It’s a specialized geological term.

Unfortunately, the major media overlook the distinction of meanings, and then make the further generalization from two specific glaciers to the entire WAIS, and moreover to Antarctica in general. Scientists who point out the small actual glacier size (and volume of ice) are brushed aside in the rush to get a headline or a flamboyant sound byte that will keep the viewers tuned in. Words like unavoidable collapse carry a sense of foreboding.

This isn’t just a problem from geology. Confusion over the meaning of words used in science crops up frequently. Laws of physics (e.g., conservation of energy) are said to be true in general, meaning “always true.” But if a physicist says “that is generally true,” a non-scientist hears “that is usually true” – meaning “most of the time, but not always.” Neither is aware of the other’s interpretation.

The word “average” is easily misunderstood. For any set of data, about any topic, you can construct an average. But it may be irrelevant – a good example being the “average temperature of the Earth.” Regional and seasonal variations are so great that a single average number is meaningless. And yet people have such familiarity with the word “average” – batting averages, school grade averages, etc. — that it’s commonplace to believe that any statistic called an “average” represents something real.

Like ·  · 

More Bad News for Renewable Energy’s “Solar Power!”

Via.GREENIE WATCH.

May 22, 2014

Solar panels ‘are time bombs’

THE Coalition has likened the spate of house fires caused by allegedly faulty rooftop circuit-breakers to the pink batts fiasco, claiming Labor ignored warnings that subsidies for solar power would create a similar honey pot for dodgy operators.

As revealed by The Australian, Advancetech, the Queensland company that imported and sold 27,000 solar power DC isolators, went into receivership last Friday, leaving tens of thousands of homeowners to replace them in their rooftop arrays or risk a ­conflagration.

The Queensland and NSW governments have issued recall notices for the Avanco isolators after 70 of them burnt out, in some cases causing minor house fires.

Also recalled is a PVPower branded isolator imported and sold by Swiss electrotechnical products supplier DKSH, though that began in March at the instigation of the company.

Describing solar panels as “ticking time bombs”, Nationals senator Ron Boswell said there would be “possibly thousands” of other dangerous breakdowns.

The Queensland senator said the Labor government’s subsidy to encourage home owners to install solar panels, the Small-scale Renewable Energy Certificates scheme, led to an overheated market in which shoddy operators and cheap imports thrived.

“The flaws and waste associated with this scheme have been largely under the radar because of the scale of the personal tragedies associated with the pink batts fiasco, but as an exercise in silliness, waste, and maladministration, the solar scheme has been its absolute equal,” Senator Boswell said.

“It has a long way to go before it plays out, as systems installed age.

“Fire-prone isolators in rooftop solar arrays in Queensland and NSW are just the sort of problem Labor was warned about, and ignored, as it ramped up demand for its solar program in 2010.”

He quoted several experts who had given evidence to a Senate committee on the topic that year, including the chief executive of environmental credits trader Greenbank Environmental, Fiona O’Hehir, who said the subsidy gave rise to possible dodgy and dangerous installations.

“You would actually have DC generation on your roof, which can be as high as 120V DC. A flood of cheap imports into Australia could mean that we have significant risk,” she said at the time.

“If it continues at this rate, we will soon end up with a situation along the lines of the insulation program, which would be a disaster for the renewable energy industry.’’

The SREC scheme is still in place, though at a much reduced rate of subsidy, and is under review pending the outcome of the inquiry into renewable energy by businessman Dick Warburton.

SOURCE: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/solar-panels-are-time-bombs/story-fn59niix-1226926234717#

More Scandals Involving the Liberals….Does it Never End?

 

ONTARIO ELECTION: WORKING FAMILIES EXPOSED,

AND DEB MATTHEWS ON THE HOT SEAT AGAIN

1)  The Working Families Coalition has been exposed as being nothing more than a gang of old white dudes who spend millions and millions of union member paid dollars to try to keep their arch nemesis — the PC party —  out of Queen’s Park.

Click on the link and sign the petition to stop this kind of third party interference and intimidation in our democratic voting process. 

 

2) Deb Matthews, the Liberal Party’s version of a bumbling inept fool is in hot water once again.  This time over colorectal screening practices in Ontario.  Click here to read article in the Toronto Star.

 

We can dream can’t we?…..

Matthews

How Could Anyone Vote for the Liberal Miscreants?

This Household Is Quite Unhappy With The Ontario Liberals (PHOTO)

The Huffington Post Canada  |  Posted: 05/21/2014 4:43 pm EDT  

 Embedded image permalink

Well, don’t sugarcoat it.

Matt Young, an Ontario PC candidate in Ottawa South, tweeted a photo of an angry letter he found taped to a door in his riding Wednesday.

The note tears a strip off Ontario Liberals over high electricity rates and the gas plant scandal. It also warns Grit MPP John Fraser and his “henchmen” that they will be hit with both HYDRO BILLS and OBSCENITIES if they dare knock.

Whoever posted the letter claims to have worked on five different Liberal campaigns but now regrets those efforts.

Ottawa South was previously represented by former Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty. Fraser won a byelection to replace him in August, besting Young by more than 1,000 votes.

The note may be representative of how some Ontarians feel about the estimated $1.1 billion lost after the cancellation of gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville.

But Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, who endorsed Liberal leader Kathleen Wynne last week, believes there are more important issues to focus on. In fact, she called the scandal “water under the bridge.”

The best line of the angry letter?

“John Manley would be turning in his grave if he were dead.”

Manley, a former federal Liberal finance minister, was the MP for Ottawa South for about 16 years. He was replaced by another McGunity — Dalton’s younger brother, David.

Ontario voters head to the polls on June 12.

Tim Hudak can Legally get rid of Greed Energy Contractual Obligations!

Killing green energy contracts

Done the right way, a new PC government could indeed rip up green energy contracts with no liability. Should they?

Brent Lewin/BloombergDone the right way, a new PC government could indeed rip up green energy contracts with no liability. 

Hudak’s Ontario Conservatives can easily and legally negate the giveaways the Liberals had lavished on renewables developers

Tim Hudak says the Ontario Conservatives, if elected, will cancel lucrative wind and solar contracts put in place under the Liberals’ green energy program. Can he do so without racking up huge compensation costs?

The answer is yes – if he does it the right way.

The wrong way is to direct the Ontario Power Authority to simply terminate existing contracts, which have robust compensation clauses. The liabilities would dwarf the $1.1-billion paid out by the Liberals for cancelled gas plants.

The right way is to legislate: to enact a statute that declares green contracts to be null and void, and the province to be free from liability. The compensation clauses in the contract will be rendered inoperative if the statute says so.

Statutes can override iron-clad provisions in a contract because that is the nature of legislative supremacy: Legislatures can pass laws of any kind, as long as they are within their jurisdiction and do not offend the constitution. Legislating on electricity production is clearly a provincial power, as are “property and civil rights.”

Since the Canadian constitution does not guarantee property or contract rights, there are no obvious constitutional limitations on a provincial legislature’s ability to change any contract as it likes. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, in Canada there is no constitutional right to compensation for property expropriated by government.

Courts interpret ambiguous statutes as implicitly requiring compensation be paid to the owner of expropriated property. But if the statute is clear that no compensation shall be paid, the words of the statute govern. Where a statute and a contract are in conflict, the statute prevails. Although unilateral and retroactive changes to established contracts might seem to offend the rule of law, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that prospectivity is not a constitutional requirement for legislation.

AdvertisementWhat about NAFTA? Could a U.S. or Mexican firm with a cancelled green energy contract in Ontario seek compensation for discriminatory expropriation under Chapter 11? If government action singled out a specific party’s contract for termination, it could well be characterized as discriminatory. But if Hudak’s statute cancelled large numbers of contracts for a public policy objective and treated domestic and foreign firms similarly, then NAFTA protections are unlikely to apply.

So, done the right way, a new PC government could indeed rip up green energy contracts with no liability. Should they? While legislatures can cancel contracts, they rarely do so because it penalizes parties who have done business with government, and therefore creates a disincentive to do so in the future. It erodes economic confidence and credibility. For Conservatives and their supporters, cancelling energy contracts may depend on what they find more offensive: Rich subsidies for the production of solar and wind energy, or unilateral changes to valid contracts. No renewable energy contracts have been cancelled in Ontario yet, but in Europe this line has been crossed: Spain, France, Italy and Belgium have all stepped back from their original terms for the production and purchase of renewable power, to the detriment of their domestic renewable energy industries.

The McGuinty Liberals did not pass a statute to escape the bill for cancelled gas plants. It is difficult to know why without all the facts. Perhaps they thought $1.1-billion in costs and erased records would not come to light. Perhaps they feared that legislation would have required disclosure of facts they wanted hidden. Perhaps refusing to pay compensation would have crippled their ability to enter into future contracts with the same or similar companies. Perhaps there were foreign firms involved that could, in fact, have claimed under NAFTA for discriminatory expropriation. Perhaps they judged the political and economic costs to be too high – it is one thing to roll back a program created by a previous government, especially if you have campaigned on the issue, and quite another for a long-standing government to arbitrarily cancel its own contracts. Or perhaps they did not have an opportunity until after they lost their majority, which made it politically untenable.

Contracts are safe when both parties are bound in law to follow them. Contracting with government means that one party has the power to change the rules after the contract is made. Buyers and sellers beware: At the end of the day, the protection in a government contract is not legal but political.

Bruce Pardy is a law professor at Queen’s University.

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

Family Hype

All Things Related To The Family

DeFrock

defrock.org's principal concern is the environmental and human damage of industrial wind turbines on rural communities

Gerold's Blog

The truth shall set you free but first it will make you miserable

Politisite

Breaking Political News, Election Results, Commentary and Analysis

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

My thoughts...my life...my own way.

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the seasons from changing. We don't control the climate; IT controls US.

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem