/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ontario election debate: Hudak and Horwath

try to make ‘corrupt’ Liberal record stick

Scott Stinson | June 3, 2014 9:29 PM ET

Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath, Liberal leader Kathleen Wynne and PC leader Tim Hudak square off in a televised debate in Toronto on Tuesday. Wynne was forced to defend her role in the Liberal gas-plant scandal.

Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press; Frank Gunn/CP; Mark Blinch/CP-poolOntario NDP leader Andrea Horwath, Liberal leader Kathleen Wynne and PC leader Tim Hudak square off in a televised debate in Toronto on Tuesday. Wynne was forced to defend her role in the Liberal gas-plant scandal.

Premier Kathleen Wynne spent the early part of the Ontario leaders’ debate apologizing for her party’s “mistakes” in the billion-dollar gas-plant scandal, as an election issue that has largely been overlooked in the month-long campaign quickly returned to the forefront.

The art of persuasion hasn’t progressed much since Aristotle was plying his trade 2,300 years ago.

Politicians still need to persuade their audience they are of good character; they must make an emotional connection; and they have to convince voters their message makes sense ­ — in Aristotle’s words, ethos, pathos and logos.

For Tim Hudak at the Ontario leaders’ debate Tuesday, two out of three wouldn’t have been a bad result.

Continue reading…

Responding to the first of six questions submitted by viewers in the only debate of the six-week campaign, one that asked how the Liberals could be trusted, Ms. Wynne said the decisions made “were wrong” and “public money was wasted.” Rather than pivot away, the Premier said that there had been “a breach of trust,” but “I have apologized for that.”

It was a perfect opening for NDP leader Andrea Horwath, who was able to begin her remarks in the 90-minute televised debate by saying “the Liberals have betrayed you.” How the Liberals could be trusted, she said, was “the actual question of the evening.”

Ms. Horwath, as did PC leader Tim Hudak later, pushed Ms. Wynne to explain why, as a member of Dalton McGuinty’s cabinet, she didn’t “say no” to the decision to cancel two gas-fired power plants at what turned out to be a $1.1-billion cost to the public.

“I am so sorry that public funds were wasted,” the Premier replied. “I have taken responsibility for being a part of a government that made mistakes.”

It was an impossible start for Ms. Wynne, and a subject for which there is no good answer, but even still she struggled to not sound guilty. “I’ve said that the decisions weren’t right,” she said. Mr. Hudak responded by saying that if the Liberals are re-elected after having apologized for getting caught, “they’re going to do it again.”

Related

China has NO Intention of Limiting Carbon Dioxide Emissions!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

China Denies U-Turn On CO2 Emissions
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 3 June 2014

[Yesterday] morning, a Chinese climate adviser announced that the country was going to limit its carbon dioxide emissions. Now he has backed down and says: “That was just my personal opinion. What I have said does not represent the view of the Chinese government.”

Was this really just a gaffe? Earlier in the day, He Jiankun, a Chinese climate adviser announced that the People’s Republic of China would cap its carbon emissions. That was a powerful statement, at least it was perceived as such – not least because the American president also announced that he was more determined than ever to mobilise against carbon dioxide emissions.

But China is already backing down. “What I have said today was my personal opinion,” He told the Reuters news agency in Beijing. His statements from the morning session were intended only for “academic studies”. “What I have said does not represent the view of the Chinese government or of any organisation,” he clarified .

At a [green energy] conference He had earlier said the world’s largest CO2 producer would, for the first time, cap its greenhouse gas emissions to a specified upper limit. This, he claimed, would be firmly anchored in China’s upcoming five-year plan that will come into force in 2016. Coming soon after the announcement of new measures by the U.S. government the day before, this announcement had raised hopes of an international breakthrough in the fight against global climate change.

Translation GWPF

The Government is Knowingly Harming Residents that Live Near Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Turbine Noise & Adverse Health Effects, June 2014

 

What Was Known in the 1980’s About Wind Turbine IFLN and Turbulence

 

Constructively addressing the current conundrum about precisely what is causing the reported symptoms, sensations, sleep disruption and deteriorating mental and physical health of residents living near industrial wind turbines around the world, and trying to prevent such damage to health in future, has not been helped by ignoring important research findings of the past, particularly those of Dr Neil Kelley and his co researchers, and other NASA researchers during the 1980’s. 1,2,3

For those who are not aware, Dr Kelley and his co researchers at the Solar Energy Research Institute (“SERI”) identified in 1985 that the cause of the symptoms euphemistically called “annoyance” for the residents living near a single downwind-bladed turbine was impulsive infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) from that wind turbine, which then resonated within some building structures. 4 The effects were consistently reported to be worst in small rooms facing the noise source. 5 Sensitisation or “conditioning” was also acknowledged 6 – in simple terms people did not habituate to the sound energy but became sensitised to it. What was also clearly established was that perception of the sound energy was well below the audibility thresholds for hearing in the infrasound range. 7

Subsequent laboratory experiments using volunteers working for SERI (rather than wind turbine noise sensitised residents) reproduced the sound energy and the variable effects on those exposed. 8 In other words, direct causation of the reported “annoyance” effects from the impulsive reproduced sound energy identical to “wind turbine noise” was clearly established. This research was presented to the international wind industry at the American Wind Energy Association Windpower conference in 1987, sponsored by the US Department of Energy. 9

Subsequent NASA research in Hawaii by Shepherd and Hubbard in 1989 showed that modern upwind-bladed wind turbines could also generate higher than expected infrasound and low frequency noise, especially when the inflow air was turbulent. 10 This occurs when wind developers site wind turbines too close together. More recent work by Laratro et al 11 has confirmed that tip vortices have only just broken down at 7 rotor diameters (using free stream speed of 10m/s), providing empirical support for a minimum of 7 rotor diameter separation distance.

Despite the scientific acoustic knowledge from the 1980’s that infrasound and low frequency noise could be generated by both downwind-bladed and upwind-bladed wind turbines, and that these frequencies could directly cause symptoms including sleep disturbance, the global wind industry, and noise pollution regulatory authorities have not measured the full acoustic spectrum, and in particular have ensured that accurate measurement of both infrasound and low frequency noise inside homes is not included in wind turbine noise pollution regulations. It is clear that these regulations, developed with wind industry assistance, have favoured the expansion of the wind industry, at the expense of public health. 12

The following photo shows the wake turbulence generated by wind turbines, from a maritime wind development in the Atlantic called Horns Rev. 13 The turbulence extends to a significant distance many kilometres away, and increases significantly when subsequent turbines are downwind and receive the turbulent inflow of air. These are the precise conditions which Shepherd and Hubbard 14 demonstrated in 1989 markedly increase the generation of ILFN from upwind-bladed wind turbines.

Acousticians

Acousticians as a profession are far more knowledgeable about the range of symptoms and sensations directly caused by exposure to infrasound, low frequency noise, audible noise, and vibration than most health professionals, with the exception of some occupational physicians 15,16 and some ear nose and throat specialists. 17,18,19,20 These symptoms are commonly called “annoyance”.

Rural Health Practitioners

Rural health practitioners 21,22,23,24,25,26,27.28,29 have been at the forefront of trying to raise the alarm with health authorities and their colleagues about the severity of the impacts and clinical consequences they are seeing, particularly over the last ten years. So far, those concerns have not resulted in any multidisciplinary concurrent acoustic and health research, despite the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry’s recommendation for research “as a priority” in June 2011. 30

Flawed Literature Reviews, Studies, Research Proposals and Reports

Some of these and their critiques are available on our website, 31 and include:

• AWEA CANWEA 2009 Literature Review by Colby et al 32

• Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council’s 2010 “Rapid Review” 33

• Health Canada Study, proposed 2012, and currently underway 34

• the Victorian Department of Health, April 2013.35

• the South Australian Environmental Protection Agency’s Waterloo Wind Development acoustic survey 36,

• the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council’s commissioned Systematic Literature Review released in 2014 37

• the Australian Medical Association position paper, March 2014 38

The only explanation for these flawed studies/reports/position statements is that the issuers/authors wished to promote and protect the wind industry, at the expense of the health of the rural neighbours to these wind projects. These rural residents are sometimes openly referred to as “collateral damage” or “policy roadkill” by wind developers and some of the public servants who promote the business interests of the wind industry.

Others Who Deny the Existence and Severity of the Adverse Health Effects

There are others who continue to deny or ignore the existing peer reviewed published evidence of consistent distress and harm to health from wind turbine noise, recently catalogued by Drs Lynn and Dr Arra from the Grey Bruce Health Unit in Ontario, whose literature review has now been peer reviewed and published. 39

In Australia, the most outspoken “denier” of harm to health from exposure to wind turbine noise is a sociologist and public health Professor 40 at Sydney University, whose PhD examined aspects of cigarette advertising. Professor Simon Chapman recently assisted VESTAS with the launch of their “Act on Facts” campaign. 41

Professor Chapman has been invoking the “nocebo” hypothesis for some time prior to conducting his own research, 42, 43 but more recently he has cited new research from New Zealand by PhD candidate, Fiona Crichton 44 to support his frequent assertions that scaremongering is itself causing the symptoms.

Crichton et al’s research used unrepresentative frequencies, exposure levels and durations unrelated to the varying impulsive characteristics of wind turbine noise. Exposure duration was only 10 minutes during the day, with subjects who were fit young adults. Crichton’s research has been strongly criticised by experts in audiology 45 and acoustics. 46

In contrast, rural residents are exposed to wind turbine noise day and night when the wind is blowing, for up to 25 years, and are reporting their sleep is regularly and repeatedly disturbed in addition to a range of other effects which directly correlate with exposure to operating wind turbines. Rural residents are often not young, and may have chronic pre-existing physical and mental illnesses, which make them more vulnerable to the adverse consequences of chronic sleep disturbance and stress.

No Research Evidence for Nocebo Effect in Wind Turbine Neighbours

Inconveniently for Crichton and Chapman, whilst there is no doubt that a nocebo effect exists in the general research literature, there is no such evidence of a “nocebo effect” collected directly from wind turbine affected residents in the peer reviewed research, nor is it consistent with the clinical, acoustic and psychoacoustic findings of health practitioners and researchers from the UK, 47 Australia,48 Scandinavia,49 the United States,50 Canada,51 & New Zealand. 52 Interestingly, the “nocebo effect” is never used by Chapman with respect to identical symptoms occurring in residents exposed to and affected by ILFN from coal mining or gas fired power stations.

The final word on the nocebo nonsense currently being peddled by some is from Dr Michael Nissenbaum, who had this to say about non physicians invoking the use of a diagnosis of “the nocebo effect” in his final response to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry in November, 2012. 53

“… suggesting a diagnosis of ‘nocebo’ without investigating, ‘boots on the ground’, for more plausible, better understood, or more logical causes of a medical condition would normally constitute medical malpractice in most Western-based medical systems, including Australia. Individuals who are not physicians are not limited by this professional mandate or even necessarily this conceptual framework.

Sleep Deprivation and Physiological and Psychological Stress

There is extensive clinical experience and a body of peer reviewed research evidence, which supports clinical concerns about the adverse health consequences of both chronic sleep deprivation, and chronic stress, regardless of the specific cause of that sleep deprivation or stress. 54,55,56,57 Dr William Hallstein, a psychiatrist from Falmouth, USA stated the following in a recent letter to the Falmouth Board of Health 58:

“In the world of medicine illnesses of all varieties are destabilized by fatigue secondary to inadequate sleep. Diabetic blood sugars become labile, cardiac rhythms become irregular, migraines erupt and increase in intensity, tissue healing is retarded, and so forth, across the entire field of physical medicine. Psychiatric problems intensify and people decompensate. Mood disorders become more extreme and psychotic disorders more severe.”

Those who are young and fit report taking longer to be adversely impacted by exposure to wind turbine noise, unless they have underlying physical and mental health conditions or acknowledged risk factors such as a history of migraines, inner ear pathology or motion sickness, which make them more vulnerable or susceptible.

Dr Hallstein goes on to state the following 59:

“People with no previously identified psychiatric illness are destabilized by sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation experiments have repeatedly been terminated because test subjects become psychotic; they begin to hallucinate auditory and visual phenomena. They develop paranoid delusions. This all happens in the “normal” brain. Sleep deprivation has been used as an effective means of torture and a technique for extracting confessions.”

There are many clinical clues and some animal and human research which strongly suggest that disturbance of the vestibular sensory system, and the consequent sleep disturbance and physiological stress are integrally related and that the direct causal link is sound and vibration energy, whether it is frequencies above 200 Hz, or frequencies in the infrasound or low frequency noise spectra below 200 Hz. This research, 60,61,62,63 together with the clinical and research evidence of Vibro Acoustic Disease 64.65 resulting from chronic exposure to infrasound and low frequency noise, can no longer be ignored.

Behaviour of Acousticians

It is long overdue for all acousticians to act according to their professional codes of ethics 66, 67 and to put the interests of the health and safety of the community first, and to work collegiately with health professionals who are trained in accurate diagnosis of specific clinical conditions. To date, acousticians working as paid consultants with the noise polluting industries have unfortunately all too often chosen to ignore the reported adverse impacts and “shoot the messengers” namely the concerned health practitioners, fellow acousticians or other researchers. That approach will not solve the current problems with respect to wind turbine siting and noise pollution regulation, or the serious damage to health being caused by other sources of infrasound and low frequency noise.

The Kelley research from nearly 30 years ago established a baseline of operating parameters to help prevent annoyance and consequent deterioration in health from chronic exposure to infrasound and low frequency noise,68 yet these parameters have never been implemented.

The ethical responsibilities of these members of the various acoustical societies who have assisted with writing the noise guidelines for government are clear – it is a primary responsibility of acousticians to protect the health of the public. 69 The ethical responsibilities of the medical profession similarly would appear to have been neglected in the case of wind turbine noise.

The health of rural residents has clearly not been protected, and nor has this been the priority of public officials, both elected and public servants who are responsible for public health, noise pollution regulation, planning or siting of wind turbines.

Concerns are being raised internationally about breaches of human rights, resulting from both breaches of professional ethics and statutory duties of care. 70

Abuses of Human Rights

Australia is a signatory to the UN Convention against Torture. 71

Sleep deprivation is acknowledged as a method of torture. 72 Sensory bombardment from noise and light have also been used as methods of torture, documented in the report by Physicians for Human Rights called “Leave No Marks”. 73

Australia ratified the treaty of the Convention of the Rights of the Child in December 1990, which the UN adopted in 1989, and therefore Australian governments have a responsibility to ensure that all children in Australia have the rights set out in the Convention. 74 In Australia some children and their families have been unable to continue to live in their homes because of serious adverse health impacts, which have affected children’s health, and affected their schooling. Others report their children’s sleep and health is regularly adversely affected.

It would therefore appear that serious breaches of human rights and breaches of a number of UNConventions are occurring as a result of this systemic regulatory failure on the part of State and Federal responsible authorities, whose wind turbine noise guidelines and planning regulations and guidelines are clearly not protecting the health of the public, including WHO acknowledged vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly. 75

The Victorian Government was first warned of serious adverse health effects resulting from exposure to wind turbine noise in 2004 by Dr David Iser. 76

Justice Muse in Falmouth USA issued an injunction in December 2013 to prevent two wind turbines from operating overnight, in order to prevent “irreparable harm to physical and psychological health” of residents in Falmouth USA. 77

The lack of effective action at all levels of government in Australia to prevent the ongoing irreparable harm to physical and psychological health to Australian rural residents is unacceptable, and must be urgently addressed.

There is no reason that similar injunctions to prevent wind turbines from operating overnight could not be immediately imposed and enforced at those wind developments where noise nuisance and adverse health effects are occurring. Daytime exposure limits to infrasound and low frequency noise according to the Kelley 1985 criteria could be immediately implemented. 78 Turbine separation distances could and should be immediately mandated at a minimum of 7 rotor diameters, in order to prevent future avoidable planning disasters.

The harm to human health is serious, and preventable.

We know enough now, to act immediately, to prevent further irreparable and serious harm to physical and psychological health at existing wind developments.

Waubra Foundation 1st June, 2014

References:

1. Kelley, N et al, 1985 “Acoustic Noise associated with Mod 1 Turbine; its source, impact and control” http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/kelley-et-al-1985-acoustic-noise-associated-with-mod-1-wind-turbine/

2. Kelley, N 1987 “A Proposed Metric for Assessing the Potential of Community Annoyance from Wind Turbine Low-Frequency Noise Emissions” http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/1987-problem-with-low-frequency-noise-from-wind-turbines-scientifically-identified/

3. Hubbard, H 1982 “Noise Induced House Vibrations and Human Perception” (1982) 19:2 Noise Control Engineering Journal 49 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/hubbard-h-1982-noise-induced-house-vibrations-human-perception/

4. Kelley, N et al, 1985 op cit

5. Kelley, N et al, 1985 op cit

6. Kelley, N et al, 1985 op cit p 190

7. Kelley, N et al, 1985 op cit

8. Kelley, N1987 op cit

9. Kelley, N 1987 op cit

10. Shepherd, K & Hubbard H “Noise Radiation Characteristics – Westinghouse WWG 0600 Wind Turbine Generator” NASA Langley Research Centre, 1989 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/shepherd-k-hubbard-h-noise-radiation-characteristics-westinghouse-wwg-0600-wind-turbine-generator/

11. Laratro, A et al “A discussion of wind turbine interaction and stall contributions to wind turbine noise” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 127 (2014) 1–10. https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/a-discussion-of-wind-turbine-interaction-and-stall-contributions-to-wind-farm-noise/

12. Cox, R, Unwin, D & Sherwin, T “Wind Turbine Noise Impact Assessment – Where ETSU is Silent” July, 2012 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/cox-unwin-sherwin-where-etsu-silent-wind-turbine-noise/ and Turnbull, C & Turner J “Recent Developments in Wind Farm Noise in Australia” presented at the Denver Conference in 2013 discusses how ETSU 97 from the UK was the basis for the SA EPA Wind farm Noise Guidelines in Australia http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/turnbull-c-turner-j-recent-developments-wind-farm-noise-australia/

13. Horns Rev – further details about the meteorological conditions when that photo was taken are here, by S Emeis, from the Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research, Institute of Karlsruhe, August 2010: http://www.dewi.de/dewi/fileadmin/pdf/publications/Magazin_37/07.pdf

14. Shepherd, K & Hubbard, H op cit

15. Johansson, Dr Mauri 2013 Open Letter “Big Wind Turbines, Health and Disease, a Danish Perspective” http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2013/big-wind-turbines-health-disease-danish-perspective/

16. Hopkins, Dr Gary, Letter to the Australian Medical Association March 2014 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/dr-gary-d-hopkins-letter-re-amas-wind-farms-health-statement/

17. Black, Dr Owen 2009 Statement to Planning Hearing, Illinois, http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/dr-owen-f-black-md-neuro-otologist-re-wind-turbine-syndrome/

18. Farboud, R. Crunkhorn and A. Trinidade, “Wind Turbine Syndrome: Fact or Fiction” (2013) Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 1 of 5 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wind-turbine-syndrome-fact-or-fiction-farboud-et-al/

19. Enbom & Enbom, Review article in a Swedish Medical Journal, and letter to the Australian Medical Association, March 2014 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/enbom-h-infrasound-from-wind-turbines-can-trigger-migraine-and-related-symptoms/

20. Bernier, Dr Linda http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2011/40-doctors-sign-wind-turbine-syndrome-petition-quebec/

21. Harry, Dr A http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/dr-amanda-harry-groundbreaking-survey-sick-residents/

22. Iser, Dr D http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/dr-david-iser-2004-conducts-first-survey-patients-living-near-wind-project/

23. Pierpont, Dr N http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/dr-nina-pierpont-submission-australian-senate-inquiry/

24. McMurtry, Dr R http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/mcmurtry-evidence-known-adverse-health-effects-industrial-wind-turbines/

25. Reider, Dr S http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/dr-sandy-reider-testimony-calls-for-moratorium-wind-farms/ and letter to the Australian Medical Association http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/reider-dr-sandy-md-rural-primary-care-physician-questions-ama-statement/

26. Tibbetts, Dr J letter to AMA, March 2014 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/tibbetts-dr-jay-j-md-appalled-at-ama-statement/

27. Mitric-Andjic, Dr A submission to the Australian Federal Senate inquiry into wind turbine noise: http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/rural-gp-forced-abandon-her-home-speaks-out/

28. Spring, Dr Wayne submission to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry into wind turbine noise: http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/sleep-physician-dr-wayne-j-spring-calls-for-noise-assessment/

Cut off the Subsidies, and the Wind Weasels Scurry! Great!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Britain’s uncertain renewables policy puts off investors

Decision to bring forward cap on solar power projects and mixed

signals on renewables support sees the UK slip down EY’s ranking

Uncertainty about Government support for renewable energy has meant the UK has become less attractive to investors

Uncertainty about Government support for renewable energy has meant the UK has become less attractive to investors Photo: ALAMY

The UK has slipped down the rankings of global destinations for investors in renewable energy because of policy uncertainty leading into next year’s election, according to EY.

The conflicting signals over the future of support for renewables beyond the 2015 election and the proposed cap on solar power projects eligible for support being brought in earlier than planned has meant the attractiveness of UK’s renewables market has fallen back to the levels last seen in November 2012. EY’s Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index now rates the UK behind the US, China, Germany, Japan and Canada.

“The UK has slipped to sixth place for the first time in more than a year. Policy tinkering and conflicting signals once again become too much for investors and developers to handle”, Ben Warren, EY’s Environmental Finance leader said on the UK’s position in the index said.

The Government has said that subsidies, which have driven the spread of large solar farms across Britain, are to be scrapped under plans to stop the panels blighting the countryside. Energy companies that build solar farms currently qualify for generous consumer-funded subsidies through the so-called ‘Renewable Obligation’ (RO) scheme, and had expected to keep doing so until 2017.

But the Department of Energy and Climate Change announced last month that it planned to shut the RO to new large solar farms two years early, from April next year. Mr Warren said the proposals had “taken the shine off the UK’s otherwise booming solar market”.

The decision follows an admission by ministers that far more projects have been built than expected, leading to a rising subsidy bill for consumers and increasing local opposition. Greg Barker, the energy minister, said in April that solar farms must not become “the new onshore wind” and proposed solar panels installed on factory rooftops instead.

Prime Minister David Cameron wants to go into the next election pledging to “rid” the countryside of onshore wind farms and cut subsidies that would reduce the number of planned wind farms and could encourage developers to start “dismantling” turbines built, in recent years.

A report by the Renewable Energy Foundation has shown that Britain has already approved enough renewable energy projects to hit its EU targets, rendering all 1,000 projects still in the planning system surplus to requirements.

The UK’s 15% target for 2020 covers all energy, including heating and fuels – and in practice is expected to require at least 30% of electricity to come from renewable sources.

“As ever with the renewables sector, more damaging than the outcome of any review itself, is the uncertainty it creates and the trust it erodes. This last quarter has been no exception, with little done to foster sympathy from the renewable energy sector, which appears to be continuously caught in the firing line” Mr Warren said.

“The recent carbon tax freeze, an energy market competition probe and Conservative Party plans to scrap onshore wind subsidies post 2015 are weighing heavily on the sector’s ability to assess the long-term outlook,” he added.

Tim Hudak is the Obvious Best Choice for Ontario’s Premier!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

 

Shellie Correia

“the original Mothers Against Wind Turbines TM”,
thank Tim Hudak, for a Job Well Done!
    We went to the CBC, on Front St., in Toronto, to support the Conservative Party, and Tim Hudak, at the
Leader’s Debate. and also to attend the party afterward.  When Tim came into the room, after the debate, the
crowd went crazy!  I congratulated Tim, and told him that he had done a wonderful job this evening, and that
were very proud!  Tim’s wife, Deb, was beaming, and looked radiant.  What an awesome couple!
Tim Hudak made the other two lack-luster candidates, look like blithering fools.  He really nailed this debate!!!
He answered questions, while they tried their best, to avoid them. He had clear, logical answers, while they
made ridiculous statements about what they were going to do with money that we, the taxpayers, do not have.
Tim nailed this debate….hands down!  I am thrilled with his accomplishments!
     While Tim talked about improving our kid’s math and science grades, Horwath said she would give them breakfast.
Tim wants our kids to thrive and succeed, while Horwath, wants them to be dependent upon government handouts.
Tim Hudak was the only one, that would even discuss the wind turbine fiasco, the others didn’t dare even speak of
that scam!  Tim Hudak has a serious plan for repairing the damage that was done, by the Liberal party, (enabled by the NDP!)
     Wynne was a complete bomb.  She looked terrified in the beginning, Saying she was sorry for the gas plants,
repeatedly, but we already know, that she is sorry, only that they got caught!   She then became defensive, and angry,
finishing off by pleading with her ever-outstretched arms, and offering to spend more of our money on Toronto’s infrastructure
The ratio for infrastructure, was half for the GTA, and half for the rest of the entire province…..none of which she has any way
to pay for, other than sinking us even further into debt!
All in all, it was an incredible evening.  We thanked our hosts, at Boston Pizza, for the wonderful food, drinks, and service,
shook hands with the other jubilant Conservative supporters, from all over the province, and we felt very satisfied with the outcome
of the Leader’s Debate!  I believe it was quite obvious to all, that Tim Hudak, is by far, the Best Choice for Ontario’s next Premier!

 

The Faux-Green Energy Fiasco is Coming to Light! Wake up People!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ontario, Canada: A Mirror of America’s Economic Future Mortgaged To Falsified Climate Science

Posted on June 3, 2014 by 

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

clip_image002If Obama’s policies on energy and environment were truly original they would be worth consideration, but they are not. He dismisses claims that

“The economy will lose millions of jobs and billions in growth.” He said, “Let’s face it, that’s what [critics] always say,” and “every time … the warnings of the cynics have been wrong.”

Wrong! They failed disastrously everywhere and every time they were applied. Figure 1 above shows a poster from Britain, one of several European nations on the path
Obama pursues.

Ironically, Maurice Strong, architect of the false claims of human produced CO2 causing catastrophic global warming/ climate change, provided a classic example.

Obama and other world leaders are basing their policies on the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was the climate science agency created by Maurice Strong through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and presented to the world in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Figure 2 shows a simple flow chart of the structures created to control the political and scientific sectors to achieve a political agenda.


clip_image004

Figure 2

Strong chaired the Rio 92 conference and in the same year was appointed to Ontario Hydro. He became Chair and was given free rein by Bob Rae, socialist Premier of the Province. He set about applying the philosophy and policies enshrined in the UNEP program. These were designed to demonize CO2 as the byproduct of fossil fuel driven industries and nations. It was speculated by Strong in his comments to Elaine Dewar cited in The Cloak of Green (1995). He suggested,

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

 

Dewar asked why he didn’t enter politics to implement his plan. He essentially said you can’t do anything as a politician, but knew a political vehicle was required. He knew that convincing individual governments was almost impossible, as Kyoto negotiations proved. His experience told him the United Nations (UN) was his vehicle.

Dewar wrote that he liked the UN because:

He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.

Dewar concluded:

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.

 

Strong had similar powers and objectives as Chairman of Ontario Hydro and became the architect of that Provinces problems. A 1997 article titled “Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future” says,

“Maurice Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate people, institutions, governments, and events to achieve the outcome he desires.” It concludes, “The fox has been given the assignment, and all the tools necessary, to repair the henhouse to his liking.”

This applied to his UN role, but also to his Ontario Hydro role.

Under the guise of claiming Ontario’s debt was a result of expensive nuclear power plants he set about implementing an anti-fossil fuel agenda. One commentator referencing a later scandal involving Strong called “Hydrogate” says,

“Within no time of his arrival, he firmly redirected and re-structured Ontario Hydro. At the time, Ontario Hydro was hell-bent on building many more nuclear reactors, despite dropping demand and rising prices. Maurice Strong grabbed the Corporation by the scruff of the neck, reduced the workforce by one third, stopped the nuclear expansion plans, cut capital expenditures, froze the price of electricity, pushed for sustainable development, made business units more accountable.”

Sounds good, but it was a path to inadequate supply. Key is the phrase he, “pushed for sustainable development”. In Strong’s, keynote speech at the Rio Earth Summit he said:

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

 

He’d already created mechanisms to eliminate fossil fuels and bring about reduction and destruction of western economies. Ontario was his personal application and they were a disaster.

Despite evidence of the failures, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki became involved and urged Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty to continue Strong’s disastrous policies. Suzuki was forced to resign from his own Foundation because his political activities violated his tax situation. As one commentator noted,

“The McGuinty government has a major electrical power problem, one created by its decision to use the power system as a political policy tool. This policy has resulted in the doubling of rates in Ontario to a level higher than in most U.S. states. Ontario’s former industrial advantage has disappeared, while the government has been pretending that nothing is wrong.”

Because of these energy policies Ontario’s economy continued to decline. The real impact of the decline is offset by the great Canadian socialist policy of equalization. So-called “have” provinces with thriving economies pay money through the Federal government to “have not” provinces. It was Ontario’s destiny as equalization covered political failures

If this continues – this is not hyperbole, this is a fact – Ontario will become a ‘have not’province in confederation. And it will be Premier (Dalton) McGuinty’s legacy that he in two terms took Ontario from being the strongest economic province in the federation to a ‘have not’ province.

Replacing nuclear and fossil fuel energies with alternate energies drives up the costs and creates a multitude of other problems. A US Senate report notes,

“Comparisons of wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas and coal sources of power coming on line by 2015 show that solar power will be 173% more expensive per unit of energy delivered than traditional coal power, 140% more than nuclear power and natural gas and 92% more expensive than wind power. Wind power is 42% more expensive than nuclear and natural gas power.” “Wind and solar’s “capacity factor” or availability to supply power is around 33%, which means 67% of the time wind and solar cannot supply power and must be supplemented by a traditional energy source such as nuclear, natural gas or coal.”

 

Changes in Ontario illustrate the problems. Wind turbulence restricts the number of turbines to 5 to 8 turbines per 2.6 square kilometers. With average wind speeds of 24 kph it needs 8,500 turbines covering 2590 square kilometers to produce the power of a 1000 MW conventional station. Ontario closed two 1000MW plants in 2011 – the Lambton and the Nanticoke coal fired plants. Besides the land, (5,180 km2) you still need coal-fired plants running at almost 100 percent for back up. Strong’s policies eliminate the back up, so you either have dramatically increased costs, inadequate power or both.

Source: Steve Hunter

In 2008 Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that the

“notion of no coal . . . is an illusion,” and he favored a cap-and-trade system. “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” “It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

clip_image006

It’s only valid if science supports the claim that CO2, because of human production, is causing warming or climate change. It doesn’t, so there is no scientific need to replace fossil fuels.

Focus on CO2 and the assumption an increase causes temperature increase are built into the computer models. William Kinninmonth, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre explains,

“… current climate modeling is essentially to answer one question: how will increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (generated from human activity) change earth’s temperature and other climatological statistics?”…. “It is heroic to assume that such a view is sufficient basis on which to predict future ‘climate’.”

Indian Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said

“science is politics in climate change; climate science is politics” and we are being “led by our noses by Western (climate) scientists who have less of a scientific agenda and more of a political agenda.”

He should add that western politicians like Obama are promoting energy policies based on falsified political science and alternative energies that don’t work. Ontario, under the control of the grandmaster Maurice Strong, tried and they’ve already failed. It is unadulterated evidence that pursuing them still is purely political. As always the people will pay the price as they have in many jurisdiction beyond Ontario. An appropriate quote to explain such blind behavior comes from former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev; “Politicians are the same every all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.” Figure 1 cartoons the alternative energy bridge to nowhere in the UK.

I once said the Kyoto Protocol was a political solution to a non-existent climate problem. Obama’s energy policy is more of the same. It is more inexcusable because it failed everywhere it was tried, including by Maurice Strong, the father of the deception that global warming and climate change are a man made problem.

UK is Waking Up to the Fact, that the Wind Fiasco is a Threat to Energy Security!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Renewable Energy Poses Security Risk, New Paper Warns

Posted on June 2, 2014 by 

Sign_of_RiskLondon, 2 June: A new paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation warns that intermittent wind and solar energy pose a serious energy security risk and threaten to undermine the reliability of UK electricity generation.

Many people – including ministers, officials and journalists – believe that renewable energy enhances Britain’s energy security by reducing the dependency on fossil fuel imports. The ongoing crisis over the Ukraine and Crimea between Russia and the West has given much attention to this argument. 

Written by Philipp Mueller, the paper (UK Energy Security: Myth and Reality) concludes that domestic and global fossil fuel reserves are growing in abundance while open energy markets, despite the conflict in the Ukraine, are enhancing Britain’s energy security significantly.

In contrast, the ability of the grid to absorb intermittent renewable energy becomes increasingly more hazardous with scale.

Germany provides a warning example of its growing green energy insecurity. Last December, both wind and solar power came to an almost complete halt for more than a week. More than 23,000 wind turbines stood still while one million photovoltaic systems failed to generate energy due to a lack of sunshine. For a whole week, conventional power plants had to provide almost all of Germany’s electricity supply.
Germans woke up to the fact that it was the complete failure of renewable energy to deliver that undermined the stability and security of Germany’s electricity system.

“Open energy markets are a much better way to ensure energy security than intermittent generation systems like wind and solar. It would be a huge risk in itself for Britain to go down the same route as Germany and destabilise what is still a reliable UK electricity grid,” said Philipp Mueller.
Full paper (PDF)

Living Too Close to a Wind Turbine, is Bad for Your Health!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Updated Research Design and Sound Exposure Assessment

Summary

The last decade has seen a sharp increase in wind turbine generated electricity in Canada. As of November 2012, Canada’s installed capacity was 5.9 Gigawatts, providing 2.3 percent of Canada’s current electricity demands. The wind energy industry has set a vision that by 2025 wind energy will supply 20% of Canada’s electricity demands. Some public concern has been expressed about the potential health impacts of wind turbine sound (WTSFootnote i). The health effects reported by individuals living in communities in close proximity to wind turbine installations are poorly understood due to limited scientific research in this area. This is coupled with the many challenges faced in measuring and modeling WTS, including low frequencies, which represent knowledge gaps in this area. The continued success and viability of wind turbine energy in Canada, and around the world, will rely upon a thorough understanding of the potential health impacts and community concerns.

Health Canada is collaborating with Statistics Canada on an epidemiological study to evaluate measurable health endpoints in people living in 8-12 communities at distances up to 10km from wind turbine installations. Measured endpoints include an automated blood pressure/heart rate assessment, hair cortisol concentrations and sleep actimetry. The seven days of sleep measurement data will be analyzed in relation to synchronized wind turbine operational data, providing the strength of a repeated measures design that incorporates objectively determined health outcome measures.

Read full report at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/consult/_2013/wind_turbine-eoliennes/research_recherche-eng.php

Footnote i: An important distinction is made between the physical characterization of acoustical energy as "sound" and the subjective evaluation of sound as "noise" when it is subjectively evaluated as unwanted.
Posted on the Health Canada website, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/consult/_2013/wind_turbine-eoliennes/research_recherche-eng.php

The Liberals have Destroyed our Affordable Electricity

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

 

Ontario’s Power Trip: Irrational energy

planning has tripled power rates under

the Liberals’ direction

Parker Gallant, Special to Financial Post | June 2, 2014 | Last Updated:Jun 3 8:17 AM ET

Dalton McGuinty's Liberals claimed the province’s electricity sector was in a mess when they took over in 2003. Look at it today.

Ontario Hydro may well have been a mess. But it was a mess that produced less expensive electricity

In the summer of 2003, just before Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals gained power in Ontario, 50 million people in the U.S. Eastern Seaboard and Ontario suffered an electricity blackout caused “when a tree branch in Ohio started an outage that cascaded across a broad swath from Michigan to New England and Canada.” Back in 2003 Ontario’s electricity prices were 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour (kWh) and delivery costs added 1.5 cents per kWh. An additional charge of 0.7 cents — known as the debt retirement charge to pay back Ontario Hydro’s legacy debt of $7.8-billion — brought all-in costs to the average consumer to 6.5 cents per kWh.

The McGuinty Liberals claimed the province’s electricity sector was in a mess when they took over in 2003. The Liberals’ first Energy minister, Dwight Duncan, said then that he rejected the old Ontario Hydro model. “It didn’t work. We’re fixing it. We’re cleaning up the mess.”

Fast forward 11 years. Today, Ontario electricity costs average over 9 cents per kWh, delivery costs 3 cents per kWh or more, the 0.7-cent debt retirement charge is still being charged, plus a new 8% provincial sales tax. Additional regulatory charges take all-in costs to well over 15 cents per kWh.. The increase in the past 10 years averaged over 11% annually. Recently, the Energy Minister forecast the final consumer electricity bill will jump another 33% over the next three years and 42% in the next 5 years.

Summing up: Whatever mess existed in 2003 is billions of dollars worse today. The cost of electricity for the average Ontario consumer went from $780 on the day Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals took power to more than $1,800, with more increases to come. The additional $1,020 in after-tax dollars extracted from the province’s 4.5 million ratepayers is $4.6 billion – per year!

Why?

First, the Liberal Party fell under the influence of the Green Energy Act Alliance (GEAA), a green activist group that evolved into a corporate industry lobby group that adopted anthropogenic global warming as a business strategy. The strategy: Get government subsidies for renewable energy. The GEAA convinced the McGuinty Liberals to follow the European model. That model was: Replace fossil-fuel-generated electricity with renewable energy from wind, solar and biomass (wood chips to zoo poo). In the minds of those who framed the Liberal’s energy policies, electricity generated from wind, solar, biomass – green energy – was the way of the future.

The plan was implemented through the 2009 Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA), a sweeping, even draconian, legislative intervention that included conservation spending and massive subsidies for wind, solar and biomass via a euro-style feed-in-tariff scheme. The GEA created a rush to Ontario by international companies seeking above market prices, a rush that pushed the price of electricity higher. The greater the increase in green energy investment, the higher prices would go.

At the same time, Liberals forced installation of smart meters, a measure that added $2-billion to distribution costs. Billions more were needed for transmission lines to hook up the new wind and solar generators. At the same time, wind and solar generation – being unstable – needed back-up generation, which forced the construction of new gas plants. The gas plants themselves became the target of further government intervention, leading to the $1-billion gas plant scandal.

Advertisement

To force adoption of often unpopular wind and solar plants, the GEA took away municipal rights relating to all generation projects, stripping rural communities of their authority to accept or reject them.

To pay for the rising subsidies to wind and solar, the Liberals adopted an accounting device that would spread the cost over all electricity consumers. The device was called the “Global Adjustment.” The Global Adjustment draw on consumers grew fast and will continue its upward movement. In effect, the Global Adjustment is a dump on ratepayers for energy costs that are above market rates. During 2013, the total global adjustment was $7.8-billion. Of that, 52% went to gas/wind/solar/biomass.

The GA for 2014 is expected to rise to $8.6-billion, adding another 2.9 cents per kWh for each electricity consumer.

To oversee all this, the Liberals established the Ontario Power Authority to do long-term energy planning (LTEP) and to contract renewable generation under the feed-in tariff (FIT) program that guaranteed wind and solar generators above-market prices for 20 years or more. In 10 years Ontarians have seen four versions of the so-called long-term plan, suggesting there is nothing long-term or planned. The Auditor General’s report of Dec 5, 2011, disclosed that no cost/benefit analysis was completed in respect to those feed-in tariff contracts.

Whatever mess existed in 2003 is billions of dollars worse today

The numerous Liberals who have sat in the Energy Minister’s chair have had a penchant for believing how the sector should function, issuing “directives” from the cabinet. The directives created the most complex and expensive electricity sector in North America. The Association of Major Power Consumers issued a “Benchmarking” report in which they stated: “Our analysis shows that Ontario has the highest industrial rates in North America. Ontario not only has the highest delivered rates of all these jurisdictions; the disparity in rates also is growing.”

The almost 100 directives over the past 11 years from Liberal energy ministers have instructed the OPA, the Ontario Energy Board, Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One on a wide variety of issues from building a tunnel under Niagara Falls to paying producers for not generating power, subsidizing industrial clients for conservation while subsidizing other industrial clients for consumption. Numerous new programs have been created that support clients in Northern Ontario, urban clients for purchasing EVs (electric vehicles), homeowners for purchasing CFL light bulbs and a host of other concepts without weighing the effect on employers or taxpayers.
Aside from the burden on consumers, Ontario’s Power Trip has cost jobs as companies – Caterpillar, Heinz, Unilever and others – closed Ontario operations while others, such as Magna, failed to invest in Ontario due to high electricity prices and high taxes that would have created private sector jobs.

Were “green energy” jobs created? Government claims hit 31,000 in a press release in June 2013 but since then no mention of green job claims appears in releases. The recent budget of Finance Minister Charles Sousa reported 10,100 jobs in the “clean tech” sector, a far cry from earlier claims.

Ontario Hydro may well have been a mess a decade ago. But it was a mess that produced electricity priced to consumers at 6.5 cents a kWh. Current prices of 15 cents a kWh will rise to over 20 cents a kWh by 2018/19, forcing the average Ontario ratepayer to pay an additional $700 annually. By that date the cost of “renewable energy” to Ontario’s 4.5 million ratepayers will result in an annual extraction of $8-billion to satisfy the perceived benefits of wind, solar and biomass. Over the 20 years of the FIT contracts, $160-billion in disposable income will be removed from ratepayer’s pockets to access a basic commodity, all in the name of “global warming” and renewable power without use of a cost/benefit analysis.

Perhaps it is time for a change in the governing of Ontario and particularly the way the electricity sector is overseen.

Parker Gallant is a former Canadian banker who looked at his local electricity bill and didn’t like what he saw.