liberal fail!

Donna Quixote Hits the Nail on the Head, with this one!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

 

Michael Strickland — Guelph Mercury — May 10, 2014

There’s an episode of the Big Bang Theory where Dr. Sheldon Cooper, brilliant theoretical physicist at Caltech, explains to the gang why 73 is the best number in the world.

It is, he points out, “the 21st prime number. Its mirror, 37, is the 12th, and its mirror, 21, is the product of multiplying — hang on to your hats — seven and three.”

“Heh? Heh? Did I lie?”

Expressed in binary, he continues, 73 is also the palindrome 1001001.

His friend, astrophysicist Raj Koothrappali, then points out that the number 5,318,008 upside down in a calculator spells “BOOBIES.”

I think the best number in the world — at least in Ontario, as we prepare to go to the polls on June 12 — is one billion. As in $1 billion.

$1 billion and change is, of course, the amount the ruling Liberals thought we’d all appreciate having to pay in order to keep them in power in the last election. So they cancelled contentious gas plant contracts.

It’s been difficult to miss this story during Premier Kathleen Wynne’s tenure. The original estimate ballooned from a paltry $230 million and police launched an investigation into deleted emails in the premier’s office. Expect her critics to crack up the messaging on this billion-dollar talking point.

But did you know, $1 billion and change is also the amount the Liberals wasted on Ornge. That’s right, the government provided the scandal-plagued air ambulance service with $730 million over five years, and allowed Ornge to borrow another $300 million. The OPP are now conducting a criminal investigation, with the help of the RCMP, American authorities and, most recently, officials in Italy.  Continue reading here….

kathleen_wynne lpo

The Only ones who Gain, are the Rich Wind Pushers….the rest Lose, Big-time!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Dick Warburton: is the RET worth the Pain inflicted on Families & Business?

May 11, 2014 by 

bread and water for dinner

As STT followers know, the RET Review Panel is headed up by Dick Warburton – a man who’s acutely aware of the pain being inflicted on Australian families and business by the mandatory Renewable Energy Target.

Since Dick was appointed to conduct the first thorough cost/benefit analysis of the mandatory RET ever undertaken, the wind industry and its parasites have been reduced to screaming “climate change denier” – as if that were some kind of immunising hex.

As pointed out previously, these boys are just working through the 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. From the hysterical ranting emanating from eco-fascist blogs – like the Climate Speculator, yes2ruining-us and ruin-economy – it appears they’ve got a lot more work to do before they finally come to grips with the demise of their beloved wind industry.

Adding to their grief is the fact that Dick Warburton is a hardened business-man, who couldn’t care less about the juvenile hectoring coming from the lunatic fringe of the hard-green-left. You know, the same sort of megaphone “diplomacy” seen on university campuses whenever the government proposes that the students might actually contribute a little more to their own education: same intellectually underdeveloped crowd, different ideological rant.

Here’s Dick being interviewed last Thursday on ABC Radio.

Wealthy can afford deficit tax levy: Dick Warburton
ABC Radio (AM)
Chris Uhlmann
8 May 2014

CHRIS UHLMANN: Treasurer Joe Hockey wanted a national conversation about the challenges facing the budget and he’s certainly got one. There’s been no end of the advice he’s received from interest groups and last week’s release of the Commission of Audit helped to pour rocket fuel on the debate.

Businessman Dick Warburton has advised governments from both sides and is currently heading the review of the Renewable Energy Target. Welcome to AM.

DICK WARBURTON: Oh thank you Chris, good to be here.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Well, Dick Warburton, is there a compelling need to reduce the size of government and to do it quickly?

DICK WARBURTON: I believe it is. I believe we’ve got not so much a crisis but the potential of a crisis if we don’t do something fairly quickly.

And one of the key areas that I would like to see is the reduction in the size of the government per se. Now that can be both federal and at state level. Admittedly this is a federal budget, I understand that, but nevertheless you need to start at both levels and there’s a lot of duplication between federal and state bureaucratic areas.

CHRIS UHLMANN: The footprint of government of course though is big and if you withdraw that money quickly from the economy you could crash it. Is that a risk?

DICK WARBURTON: Yes, it is a risk. Quickly clearly it’s a risk. It’s a matter of trying to do it as gently as possible without harming the growth as much as you can. You will harm growth, there’s no two ways about that, but not to crash the growth.

CHRIS UHLMANN: What do you think about having a deficit tax of 2 per cent levied on the those who pay the top tax bracket?

DICK WARBURTON: Look, I guess I’m one of those in that bracket and I’d have to say from a personal point of view, I don’t like to have an increase in tax. However, I do believe that is something that should be done. I believe this is a tax on some people who can afford to do it because the middle to the lower income people are likely to be hit with some of the cuts in some of their health and welfare and other social budget areas.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And you don’t buy the argument again that that’s taking money out of the economy which will affect demand?

DICK WARBURTON: I don’t think it will take that much money out of the economy because I think at that level it won’t have such a big impact as something in the smaller, lower to middle income areas would have. I don’t think it will have that much of an effect.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Now, of course you’ve got a background in manufacturing as well. Should the age of entitlement for business be over too? Should we see an end to many of the industry assistance programs that government provides?

DICK WARBURTON: I think we should be looking at all those. Now which ones you do or use again is a matter of how to balance the area between cutting expenditure and trying to make sure you maintain growth. Yes, I believe we should look at those but I don’t have any particular ones that I think you should focus on and say let’s cut those.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Look, as manufacturing declines everyone talks about the jobs of the future. Where do you think those jobs will come from? How will we manufacture the jobs of the future?

DICK WARBURTON: Well, in the past we’ve always seen, I mean – and always is the word I use – always seen how those jobs eventually get absorbed into the rest of the community.

I remember living in South Australia when Mitsubishi stopped in South Australia and it was an absolute case of doom and gloom. But within a space of one year to two years, those jobs were all repositioned throughout the rest of the economy. And I think that will be the case – and remember the number of jobs lost is quite traumatic to those who are affected by it, significantly affected, but in the totality of the working force, it’s actually a relatively small proportion.

CHRIS UHLMANN: What has been the thing that’s hammering the economy most recently? Is it the high Australian dollar? Is it something that really is out of the Government’s hand?

DICK WARBURTON: Well, the dollar, the exchange rate is definitely out of the, totally out of the Government’s hand. That is a monetary policy factor. But remember the exchange rate, there’s a good and bad thing. It depends what side of the fence you’re on. There are certain people who would love to see a higher exchange rate, it would affect, it would help them immensely. Other would like to see a lower one. So I’ve always seen the exchange rate as being something in the eye of the beholder.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And do you think that the monetary policy settings are right at the moment, 2.5 per cent? We’ve moved from an easing bias, if you like, with the Reserve Bank to one where it’s now neutral.

DICK WARBURTON: Yes, I think it’s exactly in the right position.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Now, you are reviewing the Renewable Energy Target at the moment; that is that Australia have 20 per cent of its energy sourced from renewables by 2020. That is driving up the cost of power, but is that a cost that is worth bearing because of the long-term environmental benefit?

DICK WARBURTON: Well, what we’ve got to look at in this review is not just the environmental benefits; we’re looking at the economic benefits, we’re looking at the social benefits. We have to take into account the effect on the electricity prices, which we’re doing, and we’re modelling to see just exactly what that is. And when we’ve completed all of those studies and the review of all the submissions that have come in and the modelling, then we’ll come up with a decision to give to the Government.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Is it your sense at the moment that the economic costs are too high because the cost of power is too high?

DICK WARBURTON: Well, it’s certainly having an effect, Chris. Whether it’s too high, we’ll find out as we get into the study.

CHRIS UHLMANN: What kind of effect is it having? Just give us a sense of the cost of power and how the renewable energy target has driven that up over time.

DICK WARBURTON: Well, we’re looking at emissions, we’ve got a target for an emission control of 5 per cent. That’s a bipartisan approach. And certainly renewables have their place in that particular equation.

I’d like to believe that we’ll look at this and say, now, is the cost of the RET worth the economic pain that you get by imposing it on the electricity consumers?

CHRIS UHLMANN: And there’s no doubt that there is economic pain because of that?

DICK WARBURTON: Yes there is, yes there is economic pain. It is one part of the equation. It is not the whole part of the equation.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Is the cost of energy doing damage to business in Australia?

DICK WARBURTON: Depends on the business, Chris. Some of the businesses that use relatively small bits of electricity, obviously it hasn’t got a great effect. But there are industries that use large quantities of electricity and in those places they’ve been telling us this is having a major impact on their cost side of the balance sheet.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Well, one of the areas where Australia always had a competitive advantage was that energy in the past here was relatively cheap and abundant. That equation has changed. Are you concerned about that?

DICK WARBURTON: Well, it is still cheap and abundant if you look at the black coal and the brown coal.

CHRIS UHLMANN: But we’re not looking at that though, are we? We’re looking at more renewables.

DICK WARBURTON: Well, no we’re not necessarily looking at all, we are looking at renewables in our study but we’re trying to look at the overall generation of electricity, what are the factors that affect the generation, and we’ll be looking at all types including renewables.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And when will your review report?

DICK WARBURTON: We’re due to report in July, Chris.

CHRIS UHLMANN: That is businessman Dick Warburton who is currently reviewing the Renewable Energy Target.
ABC

STT thinks that Dick was simply being politic, by faintly suggesting the economic pain being inflicted by the RET on families and business might (somehow) be worth it.

When the Panel met with miners, business groups and wind industry rent-seekers a few weeks back he was less circumspect – telling the audience that the review has nothing to do with “climate change” or CO2 emissions – and that it’s primarily “concerned with the cost impacts of renewable energy in the electricity sector” (see our post here).

The consultants, ACIL Allen have already found that the mandatory RET (set to expire in 2031 – unless scrapped beforehand) will involve a transfer of (at least) $53 billion from power consumers to wind power generators – in the form of RECs issued to them and added to all Australian power bills. That, in anybody’s books, is a whopping cost. And the cost of the REC Tax to power consumers is just the tip of the power-price-punishment iceberg (see our post here).

Wind power cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector – simply because 100% of its capacity is backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation to account for the fact it disappears for hours every day – and for days on end – producing nothing more than hollow promises of “powering” millions of Australian homes (see our posts hereand here and here and here and here and here).

Thanks to the mandatory RET – in less than a decade – Australia has gone from having the lowest power prices in the world to the highest. And, despite wild claims from the wind industry about reducing CO2 emissions, it has failed to produce a shred of credible evidence to that effect: indeed, all the evidence points in the opposite direction (see this European paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; and this Dutch study here).

And there is, of course, the renewables “pinup girl”, Germany as the perfect empirical (and disastrous) case study. The Germans have poured 100s of €billions into subsidising wind and solar over the last decade and, despite all that pain, Germany has seen its CO2 emissions increase not decrease (see our post here). A very costly “oops”.

The conclusion of any cost/benefit analysis of the mandatory RET – and its bastard child – wind power – can only be: ALL PAIN and NO GAIN.

Why not let the Panel know what you think (see our post here). Submissions close on 16 May.

all pain no gain

Wynne has the Unmitigated Gall to ask for MORE money? She has wasted enough!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Premier claims PM mocked her concerns about Canadians not saving for retirement. Really?

lorrie-goldstein

BY  ,TORONTO SUN

FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, MAY 10, 2014 06:31 PM EDT

BUDGETPIC
Premier Kathleen Wynne applauds Finance Minister Charles Sousa as he announces the provincial budget at Queen’s Park on May 1 — a budget that increased spending, increased the deficit and outlines her proposal to establish a mandatory Ontario pension plan. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun

Premier Kathleen Wynne claims Prime Minister Stephen Harper “smirked” at her when she discussed with him the fact Canadians aren’t saving enough money for their retirement during a December meeting.

Of course, we have no way of verifying (a) if Harper “smirked” or (b) if he did, what he was smirking about.

For example, if Harper “smirked”, maybe he was smirking about the fact Wynne’s signature election promise of creating an “Ontario Retirement Pension Plan”, has about as much chance of ever actually happening as then Ontario Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty’s 2003 election promise not to raise our taxes.

Or maybe Harper “smirked” about the fact watching the Ontario Liberals run (uselessly) against federal Conservative governments in provincial election campaigns, is as old as the hills.

Then Liberal premier David Peterson did the same thing in the 1987 Ontario election, when he vowed he would not approve of Brian Mulroney’s free trade deal, unless it met Peterson’s “six conditions”, all of which have long since been consigned to the dust bin of history.

That said, Wynne does have the power — assuming she wins a majority government — to create a mandatory Ontario pension plan, so maybe Harper was smirking (as reported by the Toronto Star) over what a train wreck it will be if she does.

That’s because the immediate impact of creating such a plan will not be better pensions for millions of Ontario workers, but an average 1.9% hike in their payroll taxes, as well as to their employers’ cost of doing business.

According to Wynne, an Ontario worker now earning $45,000 a year will be hit with a new payroll tax of $788 annually.

If they earn $70,000 a year the new tax will be $1,263 annually and if they earn $90,000 a year, $1,643 annually.

Meanwhile, their employers will also be charged a new 1.9% payroll tax to match employee contributions, meaning there will eventually be fewer employees as employers lay off staff to meet this new cost of doing business.

Under Wynne’s plan, workers who manage to hang on to steady employment for 40 years (assuming they start work at age 25) will receive a pension valued at $6,410 a year in 2014 dollars if they retire at age 65, earning $45,000 annually; $9,970 a year if they earn $70,000 annually and $12,815 a year if they earn $90,000 annually.

Combined with the Canada Pension Plan, Wynne says, this will provide retirees with 30% to 40% of their pre-retirement income (up to a maximum of $90,000 annually), compared to the 70% experts claim is needed to maintain one’s pre-retirement standard of living.

Wynne also plans to include the self-employed in some sort of retirement saving scheme, but hasn’t explained how it will work.

In that context, perhaps Harper was smirking about the fact the same Ontario Liberal government that doubled the provincial debt in 11 years and is responsible for the eHealth, Ornge, Green Energy Act and cancelled gas plants billion-dollar fiascoes, is now promising to use that know how to create a new pension plan from scratch. Gee what could possibly go wrong?

Or perhaps Harper was smirking about the fact Wynne’s promise to create a new pension plan for the three million Ontario employees who don’t have one at work (translation, the vast majority of public sector workers, who do have them, will be exempt) is typical of Liberal nanny state thinking.

In other words, it would never occur to Wynne and the Liberals the reason people aren’t maxing out their RRSP contributions (the reason they gave for devising a mandatory Ontario pension plan) is not because they’re blowing all their extra cash on beer and popcorn, but because they barely have any disposable income left due to high taxes.

You know, things like the “health care premium” — the largest single tax grab in Ontario history — which McGuinty imposed following the 2003 election which brought him to power, after repeatedly promising during that election not to raise taxes.

Or the HST, which the Ontario Liberals introduced in 2010, which immediately raised the price of such necessities as electricity, home heating fuel and gasoline by 8%, along with many other goods and services.

Or because of skyrocketing hydro rates, which, under the Wynne Liberals, are now rising by 42% over five years.

Maybe that’s why Harper “smirked” at Wynne, if he smirked at all.

It’s certainly why I’m smirking.

 

Some facts about Wind turbines in Ontario….from people who KNOW!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
Ontario Wind Turbines

Ontario has the most expensive electricity in North America
leading to unaffordable hydro bills, manufacturing leaving, high unemployment and a stagnant economy.
This is the result of over-priced wind power; an industry Ontario doesn’t need and can’t afford.
(Comparing to the other provinces and the continental U.S.)

“Ontario is probably the worst electricity market in the world,”
Pierre-Olivier Pineau, Associate Professor and Electricity Market Expert, University of Montreal HEC Business School.

Ontario’s Energy Policy affects every person in Ontario.

Eleven years ago, Ontario had a vibrant energy sector. It has changed since then.
The following is a summary of the energy policy that is being implemented by the Ontario Government.
All supporting information is under Sources.

Ripley-KincardineRipley-Kincardine, Lake Huron

Over the next 20 years, your household will pay an additional $40,000 for electricity.

The cost of wind power will add $110,000,000,000.00 to our electrical bills.
To appreciate the cost, $100 billion can buy 5,000,000 Honda Civics.

Ontario is building 6736 Wind Turbines.

We already have clean and excess power from water, nuclear and gas.

Bruce Peninsula

We pay more for wind power than any province/state in North America.

We are subsidizing the wind industry.

The Ontario Government pays the wholesale price of 11-13.5 cents per kwh for wind power.
The average retail price for wind power in the U.S. is 7 cents.
The average retail price for Ontario nuclear, water and gas is 7 cents.

Ontario hydro consumers pay for a debt that was actually paid off in 2010.
The 10% clean energy rebate on your hydro bill is charged to Ontario tax payers.
Ontario is the only province/state that charges HST, delivery, and regulatory fees on electricity.
Your hydro rates increase every May and October.

In 2007, you paid 7 cents per kwh.
In 2014, you pay 14-27 cents per kwh, depending on usage and location.
Check your hydro bill; divide the total (including HST, delivery and regulatory fees) by your usage.

1699 kwh costs $210 = 14 cents per kwh.
288 kwh costs $79 = 27 cents per kwh.

Compare our rates to: 6.8 cents in Quebec and 7.9 cents in Manitoba.

Pro-wind groups claim that our expensive electricity is due to expensive nuclear power.
However, the Ontario Power Generation states otherwise as per the link below:
http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/Pages/nuclear.aspx

Shelburne

Manufacturing is leaving Ontario.

“Ontario has the highest industrial rates in North America.”
Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario. Refer to Sources for complete report.

Caterpillar (2 plants), United Steel. Heinz, Bicks, International Trucking,
General Motors, Navistar, Kellogg’s, John Deer, Lance Bakeries, Kraft Foods, Unilever.

NOVA Chemicals says the cost of power is critical in its decision to locate a multi-billion-dollar polyethylene expansion in Sarnia Ontario.
Their alternative is the U.S. Gulf Coast where rates are a fraction of ours.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/ontario-drives-manufacturers-away-with-overpriced-electricity/article14854752/

Since 2006, power usage has decreased by 6%.
Ontario has almost 1 million people out of work.
Ontario’s $227 billion debt is the worst in North America.

“Ontario’s economy has not performed on par with the rest of Canada,
due in part to its slow economic growth and spiralling public debt.”
Fraser Institute, April 2014. Refer to Sources for complete report.

Bruce Peninsula

Gone are the days of beautiful Ontario….

“These wind projects will change this place more totally, more rapidly and more permanently
than anything in the past 10,000 years”
James Corcoran, South Huron, Ontario
30 years experience, environmental assessments on behalf of developers.

The Human & Environmental Impact

To appreciate the full impact of turbines on our people, please find the time to read this:
http://www.southwesternontario.ca/news/public-fills-gallery-to-hear-wind-turbine-concerns/

Wind companies pay proportionally less taxes than the rest of us; turbines are assessed at a fraction of the actual value.
Farmers who sign 20 years leases with Wind Companies also sign a gag order whereby they must promote turbines and cannot criticize.

Wind companies are exempt from many Ontario laws.

Examples: municipal bylaws, building permits, road weight restrictions, proximity to highways, drainage.
Example: The restriction on rural bridges with 1/2 ton limits, where the heaviest load is usually a tractor,
are lifted during the construction of a wind project.
Example: Wind Projects can violate the Labour Act.
These cranes from the Adelaide wind project were left in this position overnight.

cranes

The Ministries of Environment and Natural Resources have changed laws that apply only to wind companies.

Example: there is no protection of wetlands; death or harm to endangered species.
Example: If you destroy an eagle’s nest, the fine is $10,000; whereas wind companies are exempt.

Wind companies routinely sue municipalities/persons who get in their way.

The government supplies lawyers to back a wind company;
but has never backed a municipality, group or person.

Laws were passed where municipalities have no rights regarding wind projects in their jurisdiction.
Over 80 municipalities are “unwilling hosts” to turbines, but are not acknowledged.

Every turbine will permanently destroy 3 acres of land; roughly 21,000 acres of farmland lost forever.
Ontario turbines are closer to humans than any place in the world.
People are suffering from constant turbine noise and wind turbine syndrome which can be life threatening.
People are abandoning their homes at a unprecedented pace; very few want to live in or buy a house surrounded by turbines.
The fortunate ones are bought out by the wind companies, but sign a gag order as to why they left.
Areas in rural Ontario are becoming ghost towns.

The Birds

swans-thedford-bogMarch 2014 – Lambton Shores – Rest area for Migrating Tundra Swans
March 2015 – Lambton Shores – Rest area for newly built wind turbines.

People call turbines bird blenders because they slice, maim and slaughter birds.
Turbines will be built in the paths of the millions of birds that migrate to or through Ontario.
Turbines kill more bats than birds (their lungs explode from the turbine’s drop in air pressure). Don’t neglect the importance of bats to our eco-system.

A Perspective of Turbine Height

Using the Absolute Towers in Mississauga rendered in as a backdrop:
Absolute Towers is 56 storeys.
The small turbine is the CNE turbine – 299 feet high.
The mid-size is the average Ontario turbine – 380 feet high.
The tall one is the new Ontario turbine – 550 feet and taller.

Three

The rendering below provides a perspective of Ontario’s new turbines.
The building behind is 38 storeys.

TheMega

Ontario’s wind energy policy is convoluted and wastes money.

Nuclear, hydro, & gas is clean, cheap and has a 100% reliability, but, wind is given priority to our grid.
Wind power is expensive and unreliable; available 20-30% of the time.
When there is no wind, there is no wind power available.
For every kwh of wind power, we need one kwh of backup, that could otherwise be used as our sole source.
Ontario is spending $11 billion building transmission lines to feed power from every wind project.
That’s an additional $2750 cost to your household
Ontario has too much power and we either, pay the USA & Quebec to get rid of the excess or charge 2.5 per kwh.
In 2013 alone, the loss was $1 billion which will cost your household an additional $250.
Quebec turns around and sells our hydro at 5 cents per kwh to bordering States.
When there is too much power, Ontario pays $1 million dollars a day to take a nuclear plant off-line ($66 million in 2013)
and pays wind companies to shut down their turbines.
$6 billion was spent to increase the power at Niagara Falls; only to divert the water when there is excess power.
Ontario pays gas plants to run as backup for wind power.
The first weekend in August, Ontario lost $10 million because of highly windy days resulting in unexpected power to the grid.
The same occurred on November 9 & 10, where Ontario lost another $20 million.
September 11, 2013: Ontario agreed to pay Wind Energy companies $200,000 per mw not to supply power,
The government says it’s “cheaper than paying the USA & Quebec to use it”.
Since then, new wind projects continue to be approved.
The plan to build two new nuclear reactors at Darlington was abruptly cancelled in October 2013 at a cost of $180 million.
During the 2011 election, the Liberals cancelled the construction of 2 gas plants to win Liberal seats.
These cancellations totaled $1.1 billion which will cost your household an additional $250.
The Lambton coal plant had just been upgraded at a cost of $1 billion to produce clean coal before it was closed in October 2013.
That will cost your household another $250.
Ironically, the Lambton coal plant is 1 km from a coal plant in Michigan that is still active.
“This situation is expected to get much worse over the next several years as significant amounts of wind,
hydraulic and nuclear generation will be coming into service while expected electrical demand will continue
to be stagnant.”
Ontario Society of Professional Engineers. Refer to Sources for complete report

Truth is stranger than fiction

Ontario pays 11-13.5 cents for wind power.
Ontario pays or charges Quebec 2.5 cents take our excess.
The loss is subsidized by Ontario consumers.
Quebec sells it to border States for 5 cents.
Consequently:
Manufacturers can move to the States and get cheap power; where a portion is sourced from Ontario and subsidized by Ontario consumers.

New York State sees an opportunity.
Promotional information was sent to Ontario’s Manufacturing sector citing Ontario’s high energy costs as a good reason to relocate to New York State.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/soaring-energy-prices-making-ontario-look-dim-for-manufacturers/article17560172/

Wolfe Island – photo rendering shows pre-turbine days
Wolfe Rendering

Wolfe Island – actual photo
8

The Vulnerability of our Grid

When produced, power has to be used immediately; there’s no technology to store it for a later time.
There is excess power almost every hour of every day, and Ontario scrambles to find a state/province that will take it.
Depending on their power needs at the time, we either give it away (spill it), pay to take it (spill it) or charge a very low rate.
Because wind power is so unpredictable, the IESO staff are continually manipulating the grid; telling the nuclear, gas and hydro suppliers to adjust their output accordingly; and the excess is then sent to Quebec, Manitoba and the States.

According to the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers:

Carbon Dioxide Emissions will increase by 48% in 2030,
because gas plants constantly starting up and shutting down expel more emissions than if they ran continually.

Much of our wind power will go to Quebec and the States.
Wind blows mostly at night and in the winter when we need power the least.
There is no wind on a hot summer day, when our air conditioners need it the most.

Constant changes to the grid are prone to error and Ontario’s grid wasn’t built to handle such.
Be prepared for frequent and long blackouts or worse, as in complete failure of our energy grid.

Chatham-Kent-wind-turbines-from-Lake-Erie-and-Rondeau-Bay15
Rondeau Bay

Ontario has more than enough power with Nuclear, Hydro (water) and Gas.

Ontario’s average demand for power is roughly 18,000 mw.
In the last 8 years, Ontario’s highest demand for power was 27,005 mw on August 1, 2006.

The amount of available power is 30,806 mw which far exceeds the demand.
Nuclear = 12947 mw: Hydro = 7939 mw; Gas = 9920 mw.

The Liberals will have added 3725 mw of installed wind energy by the end of 2014;
with intentions of adding more.

“Ontario will phase in wind, solar and bioenergy
….with 10,700 MW online by 2021.”
Ministry of Energy

(Ontario is offering 44-88 cents per kwh for solar and bioenergy.)

Chatham Kent – photo rendering shows pre-turbine days
chatham kent 1

Chatham Kent – actual photo
chatham-kent-ontario-kruger-energy-port-alma-wind-from-hwy3-talbot-trail-4

Does this make sense to you??

”The province’s wind and solar power initiatives were decided and implemented in such haste
that “no comprehensive business-case evaluation was done to objectively evaluate the impacts
of the billion-dollar commitment.”
Auditor General of Ontario

There are about 50 resident wind lobbyists in Toronto.

The Liberals introduced and passed the Green Energy Act 2009.
The NDP have supported the Liberals on wind energy since its inception.
The PC’s do not support subsidized wind power. They want it stopped.

This has been going on for years. One example:
In 2004, Mike Crawley, the (then) President for the Ontario Liberals,
was awarded a wind power contract that guarantees his company $66,000 a day for a total of $1/2 Billion dollars.
Since then, Mike Crawley continues to build additional Wind Projects.

The Wind Industry held a fundraising event for Kathleen Wynne in April 2013.

Those who promote Wind power, benefit financially by doing so.
David Suzuki, Pembina Institute, Cleantech, MaRs, Environmental Defence,
Friends of the Wind, Windfacts and CANWEA.

A wind company is getting a pass on violating the law?
In the Niagara region, four turbines that were built too close to residents, are violating the law and need to be dismantled.
The Minister of Energy has done nothing.
http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news-story/4390620-enforce-the-law-hudak-to-energy-minister

Lake Ontario – photo rendering shows pre-turbine days
sail copy

Lake Ontario – actual photosail

Every project could be stopped today; if the Liberals want to.

The Ontario Government has the discretionary power to cancel or modify these contracts but it’s clear they don’t want to.

An Ontario court ruling in the decision of Trillium vs. Ontario, 2013, clearly states that:
“Governments are free to alter policies in the public interest.”
“Companies in the renewable power business participate in government subsidy programs ‘at their own risk’.”

As of March, 2014, the Liberals are continuing with the 55 incomplete wind power projects (about 4900 turbines) that could be stopped legally.

“If you are asking me, will you cancel those [wind project] contracts outright? The answer is no we won’t!”
Kathleen Wynne, in Kincardine, April 24, 2014

For ruling, refer to Discussion at the bottom of this page
http://www.osler.com/NewsResources/Appeal-Court-Allows-2-Billion-Wind-Farm-Action-to-Proceed-Against-Government-of-Ontario/

Chatham Kent Airport
Chatham Kent Airport – Location of turbines was denied by Transport Canada,
fought by the municipality, but approved by the Ontario Government.
The same is happening in Collingwood, Peterborough, Goderich, Kincardine, Huron Park, Grand Bend and the Niagara Region.
The sky-diving club in Niagara Region will have to shut down.

Energy Platform by Party

The PC’s introduced Bill 42 in 2012 and Bill 39 in 2013 to eliminate wind subsidies and give control back to municipalities.
The NDP’s and Liberals voted against these bills. Refer to Sources.

Liberal

Will be pursuing additional wind power projects in 2015 and again in 2016.
Remove the Ontario Hydro Debt charge on January 1, 2016. (About $60 a year decrease in costs).
Discontinue the Clean Energy Rebate on December 31, 2015. (About $170 a year increase in costs).
Introduce a surcharge for families making over $40,000, to subsidize lower income families.

NDP

Committed to “aggressively expand renewable energy”.
Honour existing green energy contracts
Place a moratorium on all renewable power projects starting in 2018.

Progressive Conservatives

Scrap Ontario’s wind energy policy.
Give control back to municipalities.
Put a moratorium on wind energy projects.
Eliminate wind subsidies, which would substantially reduce our hydro bills.

“We propose scrapping the Green Energy Act and implementing an immediate moratorium
on industrial wind turbines until the jury is in on health and environmental studies.
We will not sign any more FIT contracts and will take a look at the existing ones.”
PC MPP Toby Barrett, April 2, 2014

Wolfe Island121

Wolfe Island before & after the Liberal’s energy policies

Is Nothing Sacred?

Temple_Rendering___Content

Near Peterborough, a $40 million project to build the largest Buddhist complex outside of China is in jeopardy.
The Liberals knowingly approved wind turbines to surround the complex.
The people in charge of the development say these turbines will have a negative impact on the serenity of the complex.
This complex would have attracted about 45,000 visitors a year and generated more than $20 million for Ontario.

Wind Farms slated for Ontario

Click here to see maps of these projects

Rondeau Bay – photo rendering showing pre-turbine days
Rondeau Bay Rendering

Rondeau Bay – Actual photo
chatham-kent-ontario-internaional-power-gdf-suez-from-across-rondeau-bay-from-erieau-2

Wind verses Nuclear

Nuclear power costs 6.8 cents per kwh, period.
Wind power costs 11-13.5 cents per kwh, plus all other costs mentioned above.
One wind project approved for the area east of Grand Bend is approximately 34 km long and 16 km wide.
The nuclear footprint is 9 sq. kilometers.
It will have 63 wind turbines with a maximum output of 102 mwh.
Applying efficiency factor of 30%, actual output will be 30 mwh.
Ontario average usage is 18,000 mwh.
Nuclear can provide approximately 12,947 mwh 24/7.
This wind project has the potential of providing .16% (1/6th of one percent) our energy needs.
When there is no wind, it will provide 0% of our energy needs.
Map

tmap

In 10-20 years

The Niagara Falls hydro generating stations are 100 years old, but wind turbines are good for only 10-20 years.
Each turbine construction consists of 800 tonnes of cement for support, approximately 250 tonnes of unrecyclable materials, 700 litres of hydraulic fuel and, 600 kilograms of rare earth metals. Multiply these numbers by 6736 and Ontario is facing a potential ecological conundrum.
The are no bonds posted to ensure these turbines will be dismantled at the end of their life cycle. It is estimated that a turbine, depending on size, will cost $400,000 to $1,000,000 to dismantle.
Given that wind companies are predominantly foreign, change ownership or, go bankrupt, it is quite realistic to expect 100′s or 1,000′s of dead turbines in 20 years and left standing.
This is happening already. Wind Companies usually don’t fix or dismantle broken turbines and, Ontario already has many non-functioning turbines.
If companies won’t dismantle a couple of turbines now; what about the future ones?.
The Liberals have no plans as to where to dispose these materials, nor have indicated that wind companies will be responsible for the costs of building the landfill sites or depots.
One can only assume, that the cost to dispose 6736 turbines will be covered by the people of Ontario.
In 10-20 years, we could be faced with a landscape of old, rusted out, broken down turbines.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation:
Launched a petition to dismantle the Liberal Green Energy Act.
https://www.taxpayer.com/resource-centre/petitions/petition?tpContentId=84

Wind Weasels are NOT known for their Integrity!!!

/ 1957chev / 14 Comments

Danish Fan Maker Vestas Run by Crooks – and that’s a FACT

May 10, 2014 by 

Forgetful-e1357598522304

Does anyone remember Vestas?

The struggling Danish fan maker used to be a “big player” in Australia’s wind industry – having sold hundreds of its turbines here. But – with Australia’s wind industry on the ropes – Vestas just seems to have lost interest in Australia – because we’ve hardly heard a peep out of them for ages.

It seems like aeons since Vestas launched its risible “Act on Facts” campaign – aimed at foiling the work done by STT (and others) – and in an effort to quell the growing community backlash against giant fans that blew up all over rural Australia (see our post here).

Launching its fan-propaganda campaign last June, Vestas trotted out the usual band of eco-fascist suspects, including a former tobacco advertising guru – who pitches himself as an “expert” on, well, just about everything.

Lately, he’s even taken to pontificating about energy market economics – citing Spain as his prime example of sound energy policy; no, REALLY, Spain. Yep, that’s right, the Country with 26% unemployment – that’s bankrupted itself by throwing mountains of taxpayer’s money at wind power – only to pull the plug on wind power subsidies, as power prices spiralled out of control, the thousands of promised “green” jobs failed to materialise and the money ran out (see our post here). He even cites Germany as a model for energy policy – no, seriously – we’re supposed to follow the lead of a Country where close to a million households have been chopped from the grid, thanks to the insane cost of renewable energy and, notwithstanding all that human misery, CO2 emissions have increased (see our post here). For a good belly laugh – see this fantastic story. What’s that you say about overreach?

Anyway, we digress. Vestas went on the propaganda front foot, spending $millions in Australia to “shape the debate” – paying its team of dilettante advocates and juvenile propagandists a bucket of loot to “win hearts and minds” – and threw a fat pile of cash at the Australian Greens in their futile efforts to unseat STT Champion, SA Senator, Nick Xenophon at the Federal election last September (see our post here).

The Greens continue to pocket mountains of wind industry money – and remain surprisingly coy about the bulging war chest they used for their campaign during the recent re-run of the Western Australian Senate election, refusing to say just who the big donor was. We think the key donor starts with the letter “V”.

Instead of spending $millions hectoring Australians to “Act on Facts” and bankrolling the Greens, Vestas would have been better served keeping its cheque-book in the top drawer and dealing with more serious matters, much closer to home.

You see, Vestas is, apparently, run by a bunch of crooks – who seem very keen to line their own pockets at shareholders’ expense. Here’s The Copenhagen Post on just how low these boys can go.

Vestas scandal continues to widen
The Copenhagen Post
7 May 2014

henrik norremark

Vestas reported Nørremark to the financial crimes office back in December 2012 because of some financial transactions in India

The Danish financial crimes office’s 18-month investigation into a former Vestas head of finance, Henrik Nørremark, has taken a dramatic turn and has been expanded to include a number of other former Vestas bosses.

The police unit is now looking into whether the former bosses had abused their positions to secure private financial gains through business dealings in the wind turbine industry.

“I can confirm that it looks as if some employees, who have had their own companies, have engaged in various forms of business which could be in conflict with the interests of Vestas,” Henrik Helmer Steen, the head of the financial crimes office, told Jyllands-Posten newspaper.

Steen added that it was too early to say whether current employees are also deemed to be involved in the case.

Vestas tight-lipped 

Vestas reported Nørremark to the financial crimes office back in May 2013 because of some financial transactions in India, but in the last few weeks it has emerged that the wind turbine giant has lodged another police report in Germany due to other transactions involving Hans Jørn Rieks, a former head of Vestas Central Europe. That case is connected with the Nørremark case, police say.

“The connection is that we can recognise the investigative theme in the Germany case from our own case,” Steen said. “They involve the employees’ own companies, whose business is apparently linked to Vestas’ business.”

Nørremark has rejected any notion of wrongdoing, while Rieks has refused to comment on the situation. Vestas has been tight-lipped on the subject, but said that it has undertaken several internal investigations since the two former bosses left the company.
The Copenhagen Post

Very unlike Vestas to be “tight-lipped”.

STT can hardly think of any other company that’s ever been more “loose-lipped”?

What’s the matter boys, rampant corporate malfeasance not the kind of “FACT” the public should know about?

Here’s The Copenhagen Post from May last year detailing the origins of the Vesta’s scandal.

Vestas report former financial head to police
The Copenhagen Post
24 May 2013

Questionable dealings with Indian partner cost wind turbine giant 140 million kroner

A dispute between wind turbine maker Vestas and its former financial head, Henrik Nørremark, is now in the hands of the public prosecutor for economic and international crime, Statsadvokaten for Særlig Økonomisk og International Kriminalitet, more commonly known as the financial police.

The case hinges on Nørremark’s relationship with a Vestas partner in India. Nørremark is accused of making decisions that he was not empowered to make that cost the company 140 million kroner.

Police have started their investigation, speaking to senior mangers, employees and Vestas’s CEO, Ditlev Engel.

The company said that it intends to hold Nørremark financially responsible if he is found culpable for costing the company money.

“The Vestas board wants every part of this case scrutinized, and we want the missing money back,” Vestas’s board chairman, Bert Nordberg, said in a statement. “We first had external lawyers and accountants carry out an extensive investigation that showed that the board and the head of the company were not involved in or aware of these transactions.”

The statement said that the independent investigation was unable to discover where the missing money was spent, prompting the company to turn the matter over to the financial police.

Nørremark allegedly entered into agreements with Indian partners who forgave debts of 33 million kroner and invested more than 107 million kroner in a project in India.

The huge investment was far more than Nørremark was allowed to make, according to company spokesperson Morton Albæk, who said that any expenditure that large was subject to approval by Engel and others.

Both the board and Engel deny knowing the details of the India deal.

Nørremark’s lawyer declined comment on the case but said that he was not surprised that it had been turned over to the police.

Nørremark has previously said through his lawyer that he belived that providing the debt relief was within his powers and that the remaining funds were lost in India on purchasing and developing land for a wind farm project that did not materialize.

Nørremark was fired in early 2012. In October of that year, Vestas announced that it had ceased payment of Nørremark’s severance package as a result of the allegations against him.
The Copenhagen Post

This couldn’t be happening to a nicer bunch of lads.

business-man-in-handcuffs

 

Faux-green wind turbines are not worth a dime!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

This is why wind energy can neither have nor produce nice things

POSTED AT 9:21 PM ON MAY 7, 2014 BY ERIKA JOHNSEN

The wind lobby has yet to give up on their quest to renew the egregiously generous production tax credit that essentially keeps the wind industry afloat by providing 2.3 cents for every kilowatt-hour of energy output during the first ten years of a given project’s operation; that lucrative subsidy expired on January 1st of this year, but it wouldn’t be the first time — or the second, or the third –  that Congress has belatedly bestowed a retroactive extension. Most recently, the wind industry was awarded a one-year extension of the credit at the start of 2013, with the new and convenient condition that any project that simplybegan construction in 2013 would receive the full benefits of the credit (whereas in the past, installations had to be completed) — and for a demonstration of just how precious that credit really is, here are a couple of handy visuals via The Atlantic:

According to the AWEA, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group, wind turbine installations hit a record 8,385 megawatts in the fourth quarter of 2012 only to crash in the first quarter of 2013 to 1.6 megawatts—and, yes, the decimal place is in the right place. In other words, thousands of wind turbines went online at the end of 2012 to power about 2.1 million American homes. Three months later, about one more turbine had been installed, generating just enough juice to supply about 405 homes.

The downdraft continued in the first quarter of this year, according to the AWEA, when 133 turbines producing 433 megawatts went online. …

 

Read: Installations skyrocketed in 2012 before dropping off like crazy when the credit expired, and then when the credit was renewed with the new and more flexible condition that projects only needed to have begun construction before it expired at the end of 2013, a bunch of projects got in just under the wire. Could the wind industry’s utter dependence ongovernment taxpayer “help” (which actually discourages the price efficiency that could make wind viable in the long run) be any more apparent?

But rather than heeding my umpteenth rant on the mind-boggling perversity of supporting a technology that so clearly cannot survive in the free market based on its own competitive merits, let’s mix it up and look to — oh, I don’t know — how about billionaire Warren Buffet, noted supporter of hiking taxes on the wealthy, in Omaha this past weekend? Via the editors of the WSJ:

So it was fascinating to hear Mr. Buffett explain that his real tax rule is to pay as little as possible, both personally and at the corporate level. “I will not pay a dime more of individual taxes than I owe, and I won’t pay a dime more of corporate taxes than we owe. And that’s very simple,” Mr. Buffett told Fortune magazine in an interview last week.

The billionaire was even more explicit about his goal of reducing his company’s tax payments. “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” he said. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

Think about that one. Mr. Buffett says it makes no economic sense to build wind farms without a tax credit, which he gladly uses to reduce his company’s tax payments to the Treasury. So political favors for the wind industry induce a leading U.S. company to misallocate its scarce investment dollars for an uneconomic purpose. Berkshire and its billionaire shareholder get a tax break and the feds get less revenue, which must be made up by raising tax rates on millions of other Americans who are much less well-heeled than Mr. Buffett.

Just take a moment and let that really wash over you, and then take a gander at the still other subsidy-goodies the Obama administration is doling out to its politically preferred pet projects. …Just today. Via The Hill:

The Department of Energy (DOE) Wednesday said it will give up to $47 million each to three offshore wind power projects over the next four years to pioneer “innovative” technology.

The planned projects are off the costs of New Jersey, Oregon and Virginia. DOE said the money will help speed the deployment of efficient wind power technologies as part of the government’s effort to expand the use of wind power.

This Amazing Documentary is Being Funded Very Eagerly, and Should be Ready Soon!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Down Wind

Down Wind is a documentary film project about the destructive impact of wind turbines being forced into communities across Ontario.
 Toronto, Ontario, Canada  Film
Story
DOWN WIND
This documentary examines the human and economic consequences of the Ontario Liberal government’s headlong rush into wind power. It’s a huge story, but it’s also a personal story, focusing on individual families and the damage these turbines have caused.

Down Wind reveals the trauma suffered by those whose lives were turned upside down when the towering turbines went in. It exposes the health and psychological problems that followed, and the warnings of medical experts about “wind turbine syndrome.”

From economists we’ll hear about the mind-boggling costs, including the massive taxpayer funded subsidies going to mega corporations.

And we’ll look at the cosy Liberal connections to Big Wind, and how cronies of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne have made a fortune off the backs of taxpayers.

Please contribute now to tell this important story.

 

Kevin McGee, Farmer and Activist

 

We Need Your Help

With your support, we’ll be able to tell this important story, and keep a focus on it in the future. In gratitude for your generosity, we’ll send you one of the packages listed on the side of this page.

 

$23,273CAD
RAISED OF $30,000 GOAL
78%
 24 days left
This campaign started on May 07 and will close on June 01, 2014 (11:59pm PT).
Help make it happen

Ezra Levant, Rebecca Thompson and Sun News, Producing a Documentary about Windscam!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
WE NEED YOUR HELP

– Help expose the ugly truth behind Wind Turbine power generation –
Ezra Levant

We’re working on something big – a made-for-TV documentary that you will not see on any other TV network in Canada.

It’s something only the Sun News Network would do. It would probably be banned at the CBC.

We’re making a documentary exposing the fraud of Ontario’s wind turbine schemes.

We’ll expose the Liberal insiders who managed to get huge government subsidies for their green schemes. We’ll show you how Ontario power prices have shot up to pay for these wind turbines – but that the wind turbines are so unreliable, most of the them don’t even generate power!

But the most heart-breaking part of the movie is the impact these skyscraper-high monstrosities have on the lives of ordinary Canadians who have been crushed by the wind turbine lobby.

We’ll show you how local communities were shut out of the regulatory process; how bird-killing wind turbine companies were forced into once-peaceful communities against their will; how wind mega-corporations were exempted from environmental laws and sued local mothers who dared to speak out against them. And we’ll show you how the health impact of these massive, flickering, noise-making blades have been covered-up by Liberal politicians who have put their wind obsession above everything else – including the very health and safety of Canadian families.

Simply put, if the Sun News Network doesn’t make this film, no-one will.

But we need your help. We’re deep into the film right now – we’ve done the field research, we’ve done the interviews, we’ve got the damning facts. Now we just have to produce and edit the project. And then we’ll shout it from the rooftops – and broadcast it all across Canada.

The film is called Down Wind, and it’s hosted by Rebecca Thompson, one of our fearless Sun News reporters. You’ve seen her work as a reporter. Now comes the big time for her, as the driving force behind the feature film.

Making a documentary isn’t like making a regular TV show. There are extra expenses, everything from travel costs, to equipment, to extra production and editing work. We need to buy music rights, graphics and pay promotional costs that we wouldn’t have with a regular broadcast.

That’s why I’m writing to you today: will you help us cross the finish line with Down Wind, and make this important movie a reality?

We need $30,000 to get the job done. That’s not a lot of money for the big guys – the CBC’s annual taxpayers bail-out of $1.1 billion a year works out to $30,000 every fifteen minutes. That’s a rounding error for them – that’s a fraction of the CBC president Hubert Lacroix’s personal expense account. But for us, $30,000 is enough to finish an entire documentary film, and one you know the CBC would never broadcast.

Because the Media Party believes in the cult of environmental extremism. If some CBC producer even dared to suggest making a show critical of wind turbines, he’d probably be fired. I mean, the CBC is the channel that has given David Suzuki a propaganda show for the past 40 years. They would never show the dark side of wind turbines.

It’s up to Sun News to tell the other side of the story. Sun News – and you.

Will you help make this film a reality? I chipped in $100 myself. If you can afford more, please do. Even $10 will help. Even $1. You can do it online, quickly and securely, atwww.DownWindMovie.com.

Put it this way: if this film helps stop this costly, failed experiment with wind turbines, your contribution could end up saving you much more in lower electricity rates alone!

You know we can do amazing documentaries – stuff the other guys won’t touch. Last year our first Sun News documentary, called Broken Trust, blew the lid off the High River gun grab.

With your assistance, we can expose the wind energy fraudsters for what they are.

Contribute what you can and we’ll reward you for your support. For a contribution of $25, we’ll send you a DVD copy of the movie; for $50 you’ll receive a second DVD and a Sun News Prize Pack (pen, bumper sticker, and mug). For $100 you’ll get all that and a promotional poster signed by Rebecca Thompson and me. And for a contribution of $250 we’ll send you all of the above, plus give you an associate producer credit at end of movie – we’ll actually put your name in the credits!

Finally, if you really hate those wind turbines – or just love stuff from the Sun! – for a contribution of $1,000 or more, you’ll receive all the above plus a fancy Sun News jacket. (They’re awesome.) To learn more, visit www.DownWindMovie.com. Help us tell the story – and be part of Canadian movie-making history!

Yours gratefully,

Ezra Levant

P.S. I chipped in $100 myself, safely and securely, right online atwww.DownWindMovie.com 

VISIT DOWNWINDMOVIE.COM TO DONATE

Energy Poverty in the UK…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Families ‘struggling with problem debt’

By Katherine SellgrenBBC News education and family reporter

street sceneThe report says “problem debt” affects 18% of households with children in the UK

Related Stories

Nearly 2.5 million children are living in families struggling with “problem debt”, according to a report.

The Children’s Society and StepChange debt charity say many families are in an “extremely precarious” position and taking out loans to pay for the basics.

The stress of keeping up with repayments leads to arguments, emotional distress for children and even bullying, the charities say.

Problem debt means being in arrears on at least one bill or credit commitment

The report – The Dept Trap – is backed by the Archbishop of York, the Most Rev John Sentamu, and is based on:

  • a survey of 2,000 UK households with dependent children
  • an online survey of 4,442 adults
  • 15 in-depth interviews with families with debt problems
  • a focus group of young people in Manchester

The survey of UK households suggested “problem debt” currently affected nearly one in five (18%).

On average these households owed £3,437 – giving an estimated total of £4.8bn for all households across the UK – to service providers, lenders and government, the research found.

Archbishop of York, Dr John SentamuThe report has the backing of the Archbishop of York, the Most Rev John Sentamu

The findings suggested 1.4 million families across the UK, with 2.4 million dependent children, were in “problem debt”, the charities said.

And a further 2.9 million households with dependent children were on the brink of sliding into financial difficulties and had been struggling to keep up with payments on household bills or credit over the past year.

CHILDREN’S COMMENTS

“I hate [school] because my mum and dad can’t afford the trousers so I have to wear trackies. But my head of my college, I always really annoy him, he goes, ‘You got to get your trousers sorted out.'”

“I like to go out with my friends quite often, and to do that I need a fiver or something to get on the bus home and maybe some food while I’m out. But I’ve sort of like stopped going out with my friends quite recently because a fiver is bread-and-milk money.”

“I hate it when my mum cries. It’s the worst thing in the world.”

“[On your birthday] your parents just want a special day and want you to have, want you to be happy, so they will end up… spending more and need more money… to spend on you and so end up… borrowing.”

Source: Children’s Society and StepChange report

The report says the impact of debt problems on children means many are suffering from anxiety, face bullying at school and having to go without essentials.

Nearly one in five (19%) children aged between 10 and 17 years in families with debt problems told the survey they had been bullied at school as a result of their family’s financial difficulties.

More than half (51%) said they felt embarrassed by their lack of money.

Advertising

The report calls on government to work with creditors and other groups to develop a “breathing space” scheme to give struggling families an extended period of protection from default charges and enforcement action.

There should also be a review of the protection given to families with children against debt enforcement, including the potential harm caused by evictions, bailiffs and court action, it said.

The charities are also calling on the government to review the case for tighter restrictions on loan advertising seen by children.

Children were being exposed to a “barrage” of advertising for credit products that underplayed the risks of falling into debt, the report said.

housing estateThe charities say children should not pay the price of debt

Matthew Reed, Children’s Society chief executive, said: “Families are increasingly relying on debt as a way to make ends meet – but we’re in danger of ignoring the impact this is having on children now and in the future.

“We cannot allow children to pay the price of debt.”

‘Stark warning’

Mike O’Connor, chief executive of StepChange, said: “This report is a stark warning to policy makers, creditors and the wider society of the devastating effects of debt on children.”

Dr Sentamu said: “When the monthly struggle to pay the bills becomes too much, often families think they have no option but to borrow money to provide the basics for their children.

“We need to make sure families living in poverty have somewhere to turn other than to usury-lenders.”

Peter Fleming, from the Local Government Association, said councils had a duty to taxpayers to collect taxes so that “important services like caring for the elderly, collecting bins and fixing roads” were not affected.

“Bailiffs are only ever used as a last resort by councils and struggling families are always encouraged to get in touch with their council for financial support and advice when having trouble paying their bills,” he said.

“New payments plans can be arranged before the situation reaches a stage where bailiffs are involved.”