Agenda 21 is NOT Sustainable!!!

The Sustainability Hoax

All over the country, city and regional governments are writing “sustainability plans,” which are supposedly aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While the goal may be laudable, for the most part these plans won’t significantly reduce emissions. However, they will certainly impose huge costs on urban residents and taxpayers.

From Lafayette, La., to the Twin Cities, to the San Francisco Bay area, the heart of the plans consists of a one-size-fits-all prescription: make costly transit improvements in major corridors and then subsidize the construction of high-density housing in those corridors so lots of people will have access to transit. This prescription not only demands a huge change in American lifestyles, but also offers no reason to think it will help save the planet.

The transit-plus-density prescription imposes major costs on cities without significantly saving energy or reducing emissions.”

The Department of Energy, for example, has found that multifamily housing actually uses more energy (and therefore emits more greenhouse gases) per square foot than single-family homes. The only way multifamily housing would save energy would be if people accept smaller homes. A better solution is making single-family homes more energy efficient, which costs less and does not require the loss of privacy in multifamily housing.

Meanwhile, data from the Department of Transportation show that transit uses, on average, about the same amount of energy — and emits about the same amount of greenhouse gases — per passenger mile as the average car. Getting people out of their cars and onto transit won’t reduce emissions, but it will inconvenience a lot of people because transit is slow, expensive and inflexible.

Even if transit were truly greener than driving, the transit-plus-density solution doesn’t even reduce driving. Between 1980 and 2010, San Francisco Bay area population densities grew by more than 55 percent, and the region built more than 200 miles of rail transit lines and scores of high-density developments along those lines. Yet per capita transit ridership fell by a third while per capita driving increased by at least 5 percent.

Moreover, cars are rapidly becoming more energy efficient. It takes around 10 years (and huge amounts of energy) to plan and build a rail transit line, but 10 years from today the average car on the road will be at least 25 percent more fuel-efficient than cars today.

We can do a lot of things to emissions, but we have to ask whether they are cost-effective. It won’t do much good to reduce emissions if we bankrupt ourselves in the process, as our descendants will be too busy trying to survive to worry about the planet as a whole.

A 2007 report from McKinsey & Company suggests anything that costs more than about $50 per ton of abated emissions is a waste of money. Even using the optimistic assumptions built into sustainability plans, the transit-and-density strategy will cost thousands of dollars per ton — and it is more likely that it won’t reduce emissions at all.

While transit and density won’t significantly reduce emissions, it will have huge effects on cities. It will make traffic more congested and roadways less safe. It will make housing less affordable and increase other consumer costs. Besides, the increased tax burden will drive away jobs.

Population data clearly show that the fastest-growing urban areas are ones that have kept housing affordable by not using land-use regulation to impose lifestyle changes on their residents. For example, urban areas in Texas, which has some of the least restrictive land-use laws, are growing far faster than in California, which has some of the most restrictive laws.

Data also show that urban areas that spend more on transit grow more slowly. Of the nation’s 65 largest urban areas, the ones that spent the most on transit in the 1990s tended to grow slower in the 2000s than the ones that spent less. This doesn’t mean regions have to settle for poor-quality transit: in most places outside of New York City, buses can move as many people as fast and as comfortably as trains at a far lower cost.

In short, the transit-plus-density prescription imposes major costs on cities without significantly saving energy or reducing emissions. Nor does it cure obesity, end poverty, or bring about world peace, as some of its advocates seem to believe. Urban leaders need to be wary of people who propose policies that are anything but sustainable.

Randal O’Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future.

Everybody….fight hard, like the Aussies Do!!! We don’t need Wynne Power or Wind Power!!!

Australia’s Wind Industry Finally Faces its “Waterloo”

napoleon

He always seemed a little taller in the saddle.

During the latter part of the French Revolution a diminutive Corsican took charge of French affairs, installing himself as First Consul in 1799; and, in 1804, anointing himself French Emperor – adopting the tag Napoleon I.

The little Emperor bestrode Europe and – with his Grande Armée – from 1803 to 1815 generally gave his neighbours hell. His trip to Moscow in 1812 languished in the Russian winter snows – it wasn’t anywhere near the roaring success he’d planned for (although it did result in one or twothumping orchestra tunes – and a few very long and somewhat grimpieces of literature).

After his trip to Russia, his Grande Armée was defeated at Leipzig, Germany and in the Peninsular War at Vitoria, Spain – but still, the little Emperor fought on.

Napoleon’s self-confidence and belief in his own brilliance bordered on the maniacal – he lived and breathed hubris and hyperbole – and if he was worried that he had made an enemy of every European state, including the Super Power of the day, Great Britain, he didn’t show it.

But, eventually, the little Corsican’s luck ran out in June 1815 – near a little Belgian town called Waterloo. Napoleon ran smack bang into a grand coalition of forces under the command of the Duke of Wellington – backed up by a host of other Countries, including the massive Prussian army, commanded Gebhard von Blücher.

At Waterloo, Napoleon’s defeat was final and definitive – with the Corsican banished thereafter to rot on the island of St Helena in the South Atlantic.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Since then to meet one’s “Waterloo” – in common parlance – is to meet one’s final, insurmountable challenge and be defeated by it.

Well, the Australian wind industry has just got a glimpse of its Waterloo.

Last Wednesday, the Coalition’s Expert Panel – charged with the task of reviewing the Renewable Energy Target – held a meeting in Sydney, attended by representatives from peak business bodies, such as the Business Council of Australia; miners, like Rio Tinto; and serious (ie conventional) power generators. Along for the ride too were a bunch of rent-seekers from the wind and solar industries – including, of course, the Clean Energy Council – all desperate to keep the RET gravy train rolling.

The wind industry and its parasites reacted in fits of horror when the make up of the panel was announced back in February. The panel is headed up by Dick Warburton – former Reserve Bank board member and all-round friend of (real) business and industry – with Matt Zema, the chief executive of the Australian Energy Market Operator; Brian Fisher, the former executive director of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics; and Shirley In’t Veld, the former chief executive of Verve Energy in Western Australia making up the rest of a hard-hitting team (see our post here).

dick-warburton

Dick “RET Slayer” Warburton spells it out.

At the time the make-up of the panel was announced, the wind industry had no real insight into just how bad things were about to get. All of that changed at last Wednesday’s meeting.

During the meeting, Dick Warburton – and other members of the panel – laid out precisely what the panel’s task is all about (and what it isn’t about) and gave some pretty strong hints about what its recommendations will ultimately be: none of it favourable to the wind industry.

The wind and solar industry representatives present descended into a state of panic stricken shock – one of STT’s operatives noted that Infigen’s boys left the meeting looking like “zombies”.

The eco-fascist bloggers that spin propaganda on behalf of the wind industry are crying foul – calling the review a “farce”; “rigged”; “biased”; with a “pre-determined outcome”.

STT puts their hysterical language down to the fact that they’re just working their way through the 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

What really got their goat was the announcement that top-flight energy market consultants, ACIL Allen has been appointed by the panel to carry out the modelling for the review.

No fools, ACIL Allen – these boys are well and truly alive to the insane costs of the RET.

Back in 2012, they produced a report for Energy Australia which pointed out that the mandatory RET – with its current fixed target of 41,000 GW/h – would involve a subsidy of $53 billion, transferred from power consumers to wind power generators via Renewable Energy Certificates – a Federal Tax on all Australian power consumers. On the modelling done by Liberal MP, Angus “the Enforcer” Taylor – and privately confirmed by Origin Energy – ACIL Allen’s figure for the REC Tax is pretty close to the mark.

The wind industry’s cries of “farce”, “rigged” and “biased” fall just a little hollow, however, against the fact that Infigen & Co had pushed very, very hard for wind industry “friendly”, SKM to do the modelling for the review.

SKM has already performed $millions worth of engineering consultancy work for the wind industry and hopes to do tens of $millions more. It’s already tossed up a few pieces of wind industry backed drivel – pitched as hard-hitting “research” – but which are no more than the kind of fluff and guff you get from the Clean Energy Council. No surprises there. What’s that you say about “bias” and “pre-determined outcomes”? Apparently, it’s only an issue when the bias and outcome isn’t set to run in your favour.

During the meeting, the expert panel made it very clear what their mission is NOT about: the review has nothing to do with “climate change” (formerly known as “global warming” – until it stopped getting warmer 17 years ago); it has nothing to do with the spurious claims made by the wind industry about the creation of tens of thousands of “green” jobs; and it has nothing to do with modelling or measuring CO2 abatement.

On that last point, the panel flagged its position by implicitly rejecting the wind industry’s unsubstantiated claims about CO2 abatement. At one point, Dick Warburton made it plain that the review had nothing to do with CO2 emissions – and that the review was only concerned with the cost impacts of renewable energy in the electricity sector.

The panel told the meeting that its modelling will assume that there will be no carbon price between now and 2030 and no CO2 abatement target during that time – and that the modelling will assume that meeting the current 41,000 GW/h by 2020 is a physical impossibility – which it is.

Head spruiker for the Clean Energy Council, Russell “Rusty” Marsh addressed the meeting from the podium – while Infigen’s boys carped and whinged from the back of the room – banging on about “dangerous climate change” – mumbling about saving Polar Bears and Penguins – and bleating about the “wonders of wind” – much to the panel’s amusement.

Dick Warburton grinned through most of Rusty’s plea for RET mercy. It seems Rusty was squarely engaged in venting the first and third stages of his and his clients’ grief: “denial” and “bargaining”.

In a moment of pure desperation, the clowns from Infigen resorted to an effort to link the La Nina and El Nino weather patterns to giant fans – apparently the latter are the perfect solution to the former.

Although, we think it a little bit of a stretch to suggest that the continued maintenance of a massive stream of taxpayer/power consumer subsidies to an intermittent and unreliable power generation source – which cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions – might have a bearing on the movement of ocean currents in the Pacific – a phenomenon which predates human history.

Rusty – and the boys from Infigen – made a raft of other wild claims about the “benefits” of wind power – all of which were soundly dismissed by the panel as “too hard to model” (polite code for “patent nonsense”) – and that any such “benefits” amounted to nothing more than a “wealth transfer” from power consumers to wind farm operators. Ouch! No wonder Infigen’s boys shuffled out of the meeting looking like extras from the Night of the Living Dead.

Having woken up to the RET review panel’s true mission, the wind industry and its parasites have now been reduced to name-calling – tagging Dick Warburton “a climate change denier and pro-nuclear advocate”; former ABARE chief, Brian Fisher a “fossil fuel lobbyist”; and Shirley In’t Veld, a “front for big coal”.

Hardly the kind of approach that might help their “cause” you’d think, but hysterical responses are to be expected, as they work through the second stage of their grief: “anger”.

The noises made by the panel at the meeting last Wednesday clearly don’t bode well for the RET. Scrap the RET and the wind industry – on life support now – will, of course, die a quick and natural death.

The panel’s likely recommendations will find a Federal Parliament raring to lay waste to the most ludicrous energy policy ever devised. The great majority within the Coalition are keen to bring the rort to an end, seeing the RET for what it is: nothing more than “corporate welfare” on a massive scale.

Come July, the new Senate takes its place and the balance of power will be held by a bunch of arch-conservative newcomers – along with STT Champions, John Madigan and Nick Xenophon.

The newcomers include 3 Senators from the Jolly “Un-Green” Giant, Clive Palmer’s Palmer United Party (PUP) – plus 1 – Ricky Muir of the Motoring Enthusiasts’ Party, who has already done a deal to side with the PUP; Bob Day (Family First) from South Australia; and David Leyonhjelm (Liberal Democratic Party) from NSW. All of them have signalled that they are itching to help the Coalition ditch Labor’s Carbon Tax – and all of them have made noises that they’re just as keen to scrap the Renewable Energy Target, too.

From July, to get its legislation through the Senate, the Coalition will have to do business with the help of these 6 newcomers – and John Madigan and Nick Xenophon. With that line up, getting legislation scrapping the RET through the Senate will be a doddle.

With the RET review panel sharpening its axe – and the Parliamentary Planets about to align – things couldn’t look much worse for the wind industry. This, of course, couldn’t be happening to a nicer bunch of lads.

Expect to hear a whole lot more hysterical language from that quarter as the industry, its parasites and the Clean Energy Council work their way through the 5 stages of grief; the first of which is “denial”.

At Waterloo, even with his artillery captured, his troops in disarray and Wellington’s superior forces holding all the points of strategic importance, Napoleon tried to rally the last rump of his forces, flattering himself with the hope of the victory he knew was his.

It wasn’t, of course, to be – Napoleon had, finally, met his Waterloo.

From the noises made by the RET review panel last Wednesday, it appears the Australian wind industry is about to meet its very own Waterloo.

napoleon defeated

Even Emperors run out of luck, eventually.

Please log onto this page, and sign Randy Hillier’s petition! VERY IMPORTANT!!

This petition exists as a sad reflection of current Ontario governments at both the provincial and municipal level.  The United States has such laws in place.  It’s time Canada did as well.
 
Please take a minute and sign.
 

Provincial and Municipal Recall Legislation

A Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario – RECALL LEGISLATION
 
To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
 
Whereas, currently the public has no mechanism to remove an ineffective elected official between elections;
And Whereas, recent activities involving both provincial and municipal elected representatives of all political stripes diminishes the public trust and ought not be tolerated in a free and democratic society;
And Whereas, the hallmark representative government is that ultimately, the authority to govern rests with those governed;
We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
 
That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario expeditiously passes Bill 124, Election Amendment Act (MPPs’ Recall), 2013, and amend it to include municipal elected officials.

Wind Pushers Have No Respect for the Communities they are Harming!

Wind turbine fallout: roads take a pounding

1297552946135_ORIGINALSimcoe Reformer, By Monte Sonnenberg
JARVIS  – Wind power companies have done a lot of damage to roads in Haldimand County. Each of the 168 wind turbines put up by NextEra, Capital Power and Samsung requires 40 truckloads of cement to anchor the base. Then there are the dump trucks filled with soil and gravel and the cranes and heavy equipment required to move parts of the giant structures around.

Most of this is happening on concession roads, culverts and bridges designed to carry the occasional heavy truck and tractor.

Fortunately for Haldimand taxpayers, the county thought about this before the wind companies went to work. Agreements require the companies to restore Haldimand’s roads to the condition they were in before construction began. Work in this direction has begun in west Haldimand now that the NextEra and Capital Power projects are in place. Read article

Check the date on this article. This is how long the Liberals have known they are harming people!

Kirby Mountain: U.K. Noise Association: 1 mile setback needed for wind turbines

Kirby Mountain: U.K. Noise Association: 1 mile setback needed for wind turbines

The setbacks for wind farms and turbines in Ontario are insufficient.   The turbines are too close to homes and will create problems for residents.   It has already been proved wind farms are too close to homes based on the experience of the wind farm in Ashfield Township. The people I talked to there, suffer from both noise and flicker.  It is totally unacceptable that the Government of Ontario and Dwight Duncan have so little respect for the people of Ontario.   It would appear the setbacks for wind turbines are to maximize profits for the wind industry with no regard for the families that are forced to live near them.   Make Kincardine, Ripley, Tiverton, Bruce township, Kincardine township and the County of Bruce a wind farm and wind turbine free Zone. There is no good news about wind farms.

We Have to Fight Agenda 21!

Local communities face onslaught from self-anointed planners

  • Agenda 21 Wreath

A growing number of initiatives by elitist organizations, working hand-in-glove with local kindred spirits, is transforming once-self-governing communities into instruments of environmental political correctness.

Cloaked in the mantle of providing for “sustainable” or “livable” communities, these programs include such fashionable ideas as “open space,” “heritage areas,” “view sheds,” ”smart growth,” “clean energy,” and “combatting climate change,” – just to name a few.

What was once largely the domain of far-away UN conferences and obscure academic journals has now made its way to Main Street. Planning commissions, which have spread like wildfire over the past couple of decades and whose members are unelected, produce an endless array of schemes designed to micro-manage every aspect of commercial, residential, and recreational life. No town, no matter how small, is safe from the meddling of planners in and outside of government.

The Shadow of Agenda 21

The proliferation of efforts by green elites to mold communities in their own image is a consequence of the rise of the environmental movement – both in the U.S. and throughout the world. Those efforts received a substantial boost with the adoption of something called Agenda 21 at the conclusion of the June 3-14, 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment & Development in Rio de Janeiro. Agenda 21 is described by UNbuildingthe UN Division on Sustainable Development as “a comprehensive plan of development to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations Systems, Governments and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment.”

A 300-page document divided into 40 chapters, Agenda 21 has many goals, including changing consumption patterns, conserving biological diversity, protecting fragile environments and the atmosphere, and achieving more sustainable settlements. Agenda 21 provides a blueprint for the kinds of structural changes the proponents of sustainable development (a term left purposely vague) want to see take place.

Merely setting goals, however, was not enough; the task of implementing Agenda 21 fell to another UN body, the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Founded in 1990, ICLEI is an association of local and regional governments as well as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) – all sharing a commitment to sustainable development. ICLEI’s membership currently numbers over 1200 cities, towns, counties, and NGOs in 84 countries. In the United States, 528 cities belong to ICLEI, including New York, Los Angeles, Dubuque, Iowa, and Arlington, Texas.

ICLEI’s U.S. website, www.icleyus.org, informs its visitors that $618 million in funding for grants and technical assistance is available for state, local, and tribal governments. The largess comes courtesy of the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Energy, Interior, and Transportation and is be used for climate and energy initiatives aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Lest they have any doubts about the organization’s commitment to combatting climate change, visitors also can read about ICLEI’s new emissions-management software.

Another organization spreading the gospel of sustainable development is the appropriately named American Planning Association (APA). Founded in 1978, APA provided a ready-made vehicle for taking the goals of Agenda 21 to the local level. A forum for the exchange of views and proposals among urban and regional planners of every description, APA has state chapters throughout the country. In addition to its well-attended conferences, APA uses its website, www.planning.org, to get the message out. Its website, for example, touts the virtues of solar power and bike-sharing as ways communities can reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions.

When such “lofty” goals are adopted by local governments, they have real-world consequences for those on the receiving end of the elitists’ grand vision. Open space in a case in point. Thomas Sewell, senior fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, notes that open space comes at an enormous cost to perspective homeowners and those seeking affordable apartments to rent. “What that lovely phrase means is that there are vast amounts of empty land where the law forbids anybody from building anything,” he says. “Anybody who has taken Economics 101 knows that preventing the supply from rising to meet demand means that prices are going to rise,” he explains. “Housing is no exception.” (Washington Times, April 23, 2014)

The “Plantocracy”

Indeed, all across the country, the lives of ordinary citizens are under siege by the grandiose schemes of what we will call the “plantocracy.” Consider:

  • In Ohio, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) teamed up with the Montgomery County Commission, the Washington Township Board, and an assortment of NGO “stakeholders” to have a bike path added to a road-widening project. The bike path comes within seven feet of the front door of a local resident’s 164-year-old farm house. In July 2013, bulldozers flattened hedges and trees in front of the historic farm house to make way for the bike path. The owner of the property protested vehemently, but to no avail. An official with the MVRPC justified the bike path and the destruction to private property it wrought by saying, “Doing so reduces the amount of carbon and harmful emissions into the atmosphere so that our air is cleaner.” (Range, Winter 2013-14)
  • In Washington, a bill, HB 2386, introduced in the legislature would create the State Maritime Heritage Area that would include “all federal, state, local, and tribal lands that allow public access and are partly located within one-quarter mile land inward of the saltwater shoreline (of the Pacific Ocean)…” Language in the bill assures the public that nothing in the legislation “creates any regulatory jurisdiction or grants any regulatory authority to any government or other entity” or “abridges the rights of any owner of public or private property within the designated area,” or “established any legal rights or obligations, including in regards to any environmental or administrative review process involving land use.” Opponents of the legislation ask why, if the designation is so benign, does Maryland have a 19-member Maryland Heritage Authority and a 10-member board appointed by the governor to oversee the state’s heritage areas. The question is a reflection of the well-founded mistrust of such schemes on the part of ordinary citizens.
  • In Isle of Wight County, Virginia, local officials are trying to prohibit a farmer from allowing a disable friend from staying overnight on his property in an RV. County officials claim that the use of the RV constitutes an unauthorized “campground” in violation of local zoning ordinances. “Cases such as this one are becoming increasingly common across the country as overzealous government officials routinely enforce laws that undermine the very property rights that are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution,” says John Whitehead, president of the Charlottesville, Va.-based Rutherford Institute.

Defenders of Agenda 21 and ICLEI are quick to point out that they have no regulatory authority and cannot enforce any of their recommendations. That’s true. But once the genie is out of the bottle and finds its way into the rules, regulations, ordinances, “green” building codes, and land-use restrictions of local governments, what comes out does have the force of law behind it. The plantocracy, with all the interlocking relationships it has with well-funded and well-connected interests, is a beast that is roaming the countryside searching for its next prey.

About the Author: Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT.

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/04/25/local-communities-face-onslaught-from-self-anointed-planners/?utm_source=CFACT+Updates&utm_campaign=b05c4876e2-E_Fact_Report4_25_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a28eaedb56-b05c4876e2-269737049#sthash.jD1YHElM.dpuf

Windweasel Lies Not Fooling Anyone!!

Wind Power: Failing to “win hearts & minds” – or “when push comes to shove”

April 26, 2014 by  Leave a Comment

Wherever it tries to set up shop these days, the wind industry faces growing “community opposition”.

This “dreadful” phenomenon has arisen all over the world. Could the “soundtrack” to this video provide a clue, perhaps?

Covered in this post – Cape Bridgewater locals have not only had to tolerate an endless barrage of turbine generated low-frequency noise and infra-sound since 2008 but, for the last 3 years, long-suffering neighbours have also had to put up with an excruciating “screech” emitted by Pac Hydro’s giant fans and heard in the video, which has become a periodic feature of daily life at Cape Bridgewater since 2011. There has been more than just a little “community opposition” to Pac Hydro and its non-compliant operations at Cape Bridgewater. Funny about that.

Although to term what’s happening in communities around the world mere “opposition” is to understate the sentiment that led somewhere between 7,000-10,000 Irish protestors to hit the streets of Dublin a couple of weeks ago – on the offensive against the great wind power fraud there (see our post here).

1397574371-dublin-thousands-gather-to-protest-against-pylons-and-wind-turbines_4479876

“Opposition” doesn’t explain 7,000 Irish protestors.

And it was something more than mere “opposition” that caused a group of normally timid Taiwanese – opposed to giant fans being lobbed into Yuanli Township, Miaoli County – to storm its Economic Ministry and stage a sit-in (see the story here). The crowd wasn’t large but they were, after all, taking their lives into their own hands – the last time this group protested about the project they were beaten to a pulp by a squad of the developer’s goons (see our post here).

Now that the wind industry and its parasites have been squarely rumbled on the fact that wind power represents the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time, their “sell” has become a whole lot harder.

Communities in Australia, Europe and North America are getting organised and fighting back hard. It’s not just “opposition” it’s a form of “seething outrage”.

A while back we likened the response of affected and threatened communities in Australia to the wind industry’s “Vietnam” – where, like the United State’s military – its people “on the ground” failed to “win the hearts and minds” of locals (see our post here).

Ecofascist bloggers have now started claiming that it’s all the developers’ fault because they failed to put enough effort into “community consultations”. Apparently, all these angry people need is a little more “education”. They need to be “corrected” in their red-necked, climate-change-denying ways so they can see more clearly the “wonders” of wind power. If they did “opposition” to wind power would melt away like snow in springtime. Ah, Stalin would be proud.

All that it takes, apparently, are some “well-oiled” words of wisdom on the “wonders of wind” (provided, of course, by the Clean Energy Council) – a cup of tea and some lamingtons.

Fine in theory, but in practice “community consultation” – when run by a team of determined thugs, liars and bullies merely serves to galvanize the majority of any threatened community firmly against the developer and what it’s trying to “sell” (see our post here).

Holding “consultations” where prospective turbine hosts literally beat up their opposition (as happened at the meeting run by CERES on Yorke Peninsula, SA in January last year) to prevent the “correct message” being spoiled by pesky questions from people who get the fact that the whole thing is a fraud of the highest order could be just a little “counter-productive” to efforts to “win hearts and minds” (see our post here).

And when the developer gets one of its goons to try to and infiltrate their opposition prior to a planning panel meeting by lying to locals about his identity in a series of emails – as RATCH’s Nick Valentine did (aka “Frank Bestic”) – the developer has probably already lost the “game” (see our posts here and here and here).

lamingtons

Hey Frank, surely this will get ‘em back on side!

The communities set upon by the wind industry and its goons today aren’t the receptive audience they were even 12 months ago.

These people now have a keen and thorough understanding of the scale of the wind power fraud – both economic and environmental. They’re well aware that wind power can only ever be delivered at crazy, random intervals; that it disappears entirely from the grid hundreds of times each year; and, therefore, requires 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time from conventional generation sources.

And, they’re alive to the fact that when wind-watts go missing power consumers (which they all are) foot the bill for the insane costs of running fast start-up peaking power plants, mostly Open Cycle Gas Turbines which belt out of 3-4 times the CO2 per unit generated compared to coal/gas thermal and cost around $300 per MW/h to run (compared to $25 per MW/h for coal/thermal).

In Australia, they also understand that wind power generators secure guaranteed minimum payments from retailers with 15 year Power Purchase Agreements of between $90-120 per MW/h which is 3-4 times the cost of power from conventional generators. They’re onto the workings of the mandatory Renewable Energy Target and the fact that the Renewable Energy Certificates dished out under it have directed more than $8 billion from power consumers to wind power generators, with another $50 billion or so to head in the same direction over the next 17 years. And they haven’t missed that fact that all of that will be paid for by power consumers – killing (real) industries and punishing the families who can least afford it.

They’re also well aware that incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infra-sound will drive them nuts at night and result in sleep deprivation and other associated adverse health impacts – and that, as a result, they may well have to abandon their homes – just like 40 other Australian families already have (see our post here).

So, when the wind industry goon – or one of its parasites – stands up at a “community consultation” and starts telling a community that its time to “take one for the planet” these people are entitled to be more than just a little sceptical about the spruiker’s story – and maybe, just maybe, a little hostile to fact that they are being taken for fools.

But, these days, what incenses them most is that all of that insane cost – and all of that unnecessary suffering – is all for NOTHING – because, in the end result, wind power fails in it’s only purported justification: it cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (see our posts here and here).

The Canadians are hip to the facts above and have mounted huge protests against the roll-out of giant fans in Ontario (see our post here).

In Ontario, thousands of individuals have taken up the cudgels, forming hundreds of groups and launching dozens of websites – no doubt spurred on by the thuggish treatment dished out by local wind weasel, Nextera aka Next-terror to a diminutive young mother named Esther Wrightman (see our posts here and here).

Well, Next-terror – true to name and form – is at it again with its latest project causing the local community to fight back, with some of them taking matters into their own hands.

Wind farm approval sparks rage
petroliatopic.com
Lynda Hillman-Rapley, QMI Agency
21 April 2014

The recent green light given the Jericho Wind Project has some demonstrators seeing red.

What had been peaceful demonstrations has now turned to anger, vandalism and criminal charges since energy company Nextera received its approval recently to build a 92-turbine industrial wind farm in Lambton and Middlesex counties.

That OK may have prompted the graffiti splashed on Grand Bend Highway 21 businesses and the municipal sign April 18.

The entry sign north to the Caldwell Banking sign “Stop wind power” was clearly written in red paint. At the Ausable Inn, one car was splashed in red paint and the tires slashed.

When asked if she was aware of the damage in Grand Bend and if her group of protesters had any knowledge of who did the spray painting, Lambton Shores resident Laureen Maurizio replied the act was deplorable and destructive and there would be “hell to pay” if she found out it was one of their protesters.

“We are here to educate; not aggravate,” she said.

Fellow protester Bob Lewis said while they have always displayed peaceful demonstrations, he could see that changing and become aggressive or violent as people become more frustrated.

The OPP charged two protesters recently with assault and uttering threats following aMarch 18 meeting at South Huron council.

“This whole Green Energy Act is unconstitutional! It was done in a manner that prevented public input and impeded the democratic oath taken by government officials,” said Maurizio.

She has called on council to request the Ontario Ombudsman to launch a criminal investigation into the Ontario Ministry of Energy, Ontario Energy Board, Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Ministry of Environment, as it relates to the Green Energy Act.

Bill Weber, mayor of the Municipality of Lambton Shores, told the QMI Agency “it’s disappointing that it would come to this in Lambton Shores.”

Even more frustrating for Weber is that the municipality – which includes Grand Bend – is one of nearly 100 unwilling host communities in Ontario.

The municipality has been fighting to keep turbines out of the community and stands largely on the same side as those in the anti-wind movement.

“Everyone understands the frustration that the anti-wind people have, that’s the frustration the municipality has with the Green Energy Act,” Weber said, adding he does not believe this destruction helps to further the protesters’ cause.

Provincial approval to build 92 new wind turbines near Grand Bend was handed down recently and although Grand Bend is not directly involved in the wind debate, yet, the businesses may have been targeted because they are close to homes and apartments being rented by wind company employees.

“The OPP understands this is a very sensitive issue in our communities. Bottom line is, it’s mischief, it’s against the law and we’re not going to tolerate this,” said Lambton County OPP Const. Chrystal Jones.

Weighing in on social media, one poster said “Shameful! This is not about wind power being a good or bad thing – this is about morons out vandalizing neigbourhoods!”

Another agreed, stating “Did they think this was going to change anything? What a bunch of fools!”

Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment has issued a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for the company’s proposal to build a 150-megawatt wind farm spanning Lambton Shores, Warwick Township and North Middlesex.

Some final details still need to be worked out, but construction of the Jericho Wind Energy Centre is expected to begin as soon as possible, said Ben Greenhouse, director of development with Nextera Energy Canada.

The project has been in the works since 2008, he said, and was submitted for ministry approval 14 months ago.

“We’re excited,” he said, noting a laydown yard — headquarters for construction — will soon be built on Thomson Line, north of Jericho Road and south of Northville Road.

But not everyone is enthused about the approval.

Lambton Shores resident Marcelle Brooks, with the Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group, has been a vocal opponent of the project.

“It was just devastating that our voices simply aren’t being heard.”

Members of the Lakeshore Coalition met with the Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group to discuss what actions can be taken to appeal the decision.

“The fight isn’t over yet,” Brooks said. “The ministry’s working against us; we have industry working against us. But we’re fighting for our homes, for our communities.”
petroliatopic.com

While the spokespeople for the community groups quoted above are right to deplore the vandalism committed by a few hotheads, it won’t be the last time people from affected or threatened communities take the law into their own hands.

These people are, quite rightly, angry; and, funnily enough, angry people sometimes react angrily. When faced with institutional corruption and entrenched government-endorsed treachery, lies and deceit – the better angels of patience, reason and rationality can end up taking a backseat.

But, there have been more than a few occasions in human history where citizens have tossed patience and reason aside and risen against the tyranny of the state – and the powerful few that have benefited handsomely from that tyranny. And very few of those scores were settled over cups of tea and lamingtons.

storming_the_bastille1-e1318690559144

If only Marie Antoinette had told them to eat lamingtons, instead.

Hydro Prices Forcing Businesses to Close.

Business hit with massive hydro bill after smart meter installed

A small business west of London is on the hook for thousands more than expected after installing a required smart meter. Kelda Yuen reports

As electricity prices in Ontario continue to rise, some businesses say their days in the province could be numbered. Scott Miller has more.
Last Updated Friday, April 25, 2014 6:47PM EDT

A small business owner west of London will have to pay more to find out if the smart meter installed before his hydro bills skyrocketed is faulty.

 

That was the total of the bill he received in Februrary. But for all of 2012 his bill was just over $13,000.

Lanuza blames the smart meter he was required to install, even though according to Hydro One “Sample testing of thousands of meters in the past six years has shown the meters to be 99.9 percent accurate.”

After contacting the company, Lanuza received a letter saying his meter was one of the faulty ones that needed to be replaced, but there was no mistake on his bill.

But Lanuza says “If I have a meter that there is a problem with that meter, how can I rely on that meter?!…And it has a problem, but they never told me what the problem is…they say it’s safety.”

Hydro One has admitted that smart meters have caused some over-billing, but the onus is on the customer to prove that they have been overbilled.

Lanuza has been told he will have to pay for the removal of his meter and the installation of a new one, if he wants his curret one tested for accuracy.

“The meter was installed and supplied by [Hydro One], why should I be paying for the cost of checking it?”

He has now spoken with a lawyer to try to get the situation resolved.

But in the meantime he’s agreed to pay the bill in monthly installments, for fear of having his hydro cut off.

“I have no other choice. I have to go for it, it’s not the money, it’s the principle,” he says.

His lawyer has drafted a letter of complaint to the indepent body Measurements Canada to challenge the accuracy of the meter.

Hydro One has told Lanuza that if he was in fact overbilled he will receive a full refund and be paid back the costs of having his meter removed and re-installed.

Hydro costs continue to climb for businesses

As the cost of hydro rises in Ontario – it is predicted to climb another 46 per cent over the next 10 years – business owners say they are not sure if they can stay in the province.

Martin Vogt owns EFS-plastics, a plastic re-processing facility in Listowel. He says his hydro bill has doubled in five years and now sits at $80,000 a month.

He says they pay $350,000 more per year for power than similar plants in Quebec or New York.

The Ontario PCs blame the Green Energy Act for pushing up prices. MPP Lisa MacLeod, PC Energy Critic, points at the massive subsidies for wind and solar power.

But those in the business of producing wind power say while the higher cost of green energy will eventually go down and stabilize, the cost of nuclear and other sources of energy are likely to go up.

Read more:http://london.ctvnews.ca/business-hit-with-massive-hydro-bill-after-smart-meter-installed-1.1793119#ixzz300jXjmtV

Sad News….Ontario losing a Brave Wind Warrior. We Wish You the Best, Esther!

Moving out: Anti-wind activist leaves Ontario worried for family’s health

FEATURED | FRONT PAGE | NEWS.

n-wrightman-leaves-1
Activist Esther Wrightman (right) is leaving the province after losing the fight to stop wind turbines from going up in her backyard.

 

Esther Wrightman feels like she is being evicted from her own home.

The woman who has been at the forefront of the anti-industrial wind turbine movement in Middlesex and Lambton County is moving to New Brunswick.

Wrightman, who heads up the Middlesex-Lambton Wind Concerns group and runs the Ontario Wind Resistance website, put up the for sale sign on her home Tuesday as workers from NextEra continue to put up wind turbines around her home just outside of Warwick. She says it was one of the toughest things she’s ever done. “You feel like you’ve been evicted,” says Wrightman who fears for the health of her family.

“I don’t think we had much of a choice here,” she says. “When you have people in your family with (pre-existing) health problems…you can’t risk it to stay…you have to leave.”

Wrightman has be in the forefront of the fight against a number of projects, including the Bornish and Adelaide projects by NextEra Energy which are right in her backyard. She went to the Ontario Energy Board to try to stop the company from building its transmission wires down the roads in her community, but lost. Now, crews are busy in the neighbourhood putting up one turbine after another.

“It really does make you want to throw up,” she says as she watches the turbines go up in the places which used to be dots on maps in NextEra’s plans. “I know these dots on these maps in my head now, after so many years now – where they are and who they effect …And then you see the dots ripped in the ground…yeah this is exactly what I had imagined. Somewhere in my mind there was a chance it wouldn’t happen…but now it’s holes and concrete… “This is what I thought would happen, but now its worse because it has happened.

“These companies have come in, they won’t be staying as people they’ll be staying as machines but you have to stay and suffer or you have to leave…That does make me angry.”

Wrightman says some of that anger has worn off as she plans to move her family to New Brunswick with her parents. New Brunswick isn’t pursuing wind energy so the family will take its nursery business to the province this summer and start again. The activist may have to return to Ontario. NextEra is suing Wrightman for libel after labeling the company as Next-Terror on line and on placards during some of the dozens of demonstrations she’s been part of. She’s not ready to walk away from that fight.

“They’ve taken my place, taken my home that I was so attached to, and five years of my life fighting,” she says. “I’m determined that they won’t take my right to speak out as a person. I’m determined they won’t take my happiness and they won’t take my health and the health of my family.”

But she admits they have taken away some very precious things – her sense of being rooted in a community and her faith in the political system. “I cannot put any faith in politicians at all…It’s a game and your pawns in their game,” says Wrightman who won’t stay in Ontario to see if an anticipated provincial election will change the situation.

Wrightman says she is concerned for the neighbours she leaves behind and the impression she may leave with others who are still fight projects in their neighbourhoods. “It does look somewhat that I’m pulling up stakes, leaving retreating. I don’t like how it looks. I’m sure the wind companies like it, “ she says. “Some people may say ‘you need to stay you have to stay and help,’ As much as I would like to stay and fight I can’t do that to my family.”

In the end, she says it is a personal choice to leave the province to protect the health of her family. “I’m a voice I’m a single person…this is what happens. We fought, we pushed them back,” she says adding she doesn’t know what to say to others continuing the fight. “When they ask, what could I do, I don’t even know what to tell them – fight government? Fight wind companies? I don’t know. Now, when the wind turbines are up its even harder – it’s almost impossible. They’re not coming down. “It’s a hard pill to swallow.”

Liberals try to trick ratepayers into thinking they will save money!

Ontario offers band-aid solution to soaring electricity bills

(April 25, 2014) Ontario’s latest plan to tackle higher energy bills misses the point entirely.

Ontario’s Ministry of Energy is doing everything it can to try and tame soaring energy costs – except, of course, ending the lucrative renewable energy contracts that are the main culprit in higher electricity bills for ratepayers.

This week Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli announced that the province would be ending the unpopular Debt Retirement Charge (DRC) currently paid by all ratepayers in the province. The province estimates that getting rid of the DRC will knock about $5.60 a month off the average household electricity bill.

Yet, in the same announcement, the government says it is “working with the Ontario Energy Board” in developing another program to help the province’s low income families deal with higher energy bills. That’s because, while the government will be ending the DRC at the end of 2015, it will also be ending the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit, which offers a 10% discount on all electricity bills in the province.

The Ontario Clean Energy Benefit was put in place in 2010 to “help Ontarians with the costs of turning on more clean power” and reduces the bill for the average household by about $15 per month. When that program ends, ratepayers will be stuck with bills that are, on average, more than $9 higher – as the $5.60 gained from no longer paying the DRC each month is more than offset by the $15 increase as a result of the expiry of the Clean Energy Benefit.

Chiarelli and the Ontario government are missing the point. The market price of power on the province’s electricity market has been falling consistently in recent years – a result of weaker demand in the wake of the last recession, less industrial output and greater conservation. But consumers haven’t benefited from that drop because that falling price of power is being more than offset by the Global Adjustment, which is a charge that appears each month on their electricity bills.

The Global Adjustment is added to the basic price of power that consumers pay and is calculated by the difference between what the province has promised to pay power producers for their output and the market price of that power on the electricity market. In recent years, as the market price of power has fallen, the Global Adjustment has increased in order to make up the difference between that lower price of power and the price promised via energy contracts to power producers – many of them for renewable energy projects, including nuclear power.

GLobal adjustment

The Global Adjustment used to be a negligible part of energy bills, but last year was more than twice the actual cost of electricity – accounting for about a third of a consumer’s total bill. Part of this tax goes to solar and wind producers who receive at times around 15 and 5 times, respectively, the market rate for their output – regardless of whether there is any demand for that power. The Global Adjustment ensures that consumers haven’t realized any of the benefits of a falling price of power, as they need to pay each month for the province’s decision to offer electricity producers high rates for their output.

Recent data from the Ontario Energy Board showed that the cost of electricity from renewable energy producers – or what they are promised via energy contracts signed by the province – will be $3.4 billion over the next 12 months, while the value of that power on the open electricity market is $400 million. Overall, renewable energy producers (wind, solar and bio energy) provide 10% of the total supply of electricity, yet receive 31% of the amount that ratepayers are charged in the form of the Global Adjustment.

In the end, the province’s move to offer a break on electricity bills to low income households misses the point. The actual cost of power has been falling, but the province’s decision to offer rich contracts to renewable and other energy producers has increased the total bill for consumers. The province has failed to address that issue.

Brady Yauch is an economist at Energy Probe.

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

Family Hype

All Things Related To The Family

DeFrock

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

Gerold's Blog

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

Politisite

Breaking Political News, Election Results, Commentary and Analysis

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

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

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

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

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem