A Wonderful Initiative, that Deserves Our Support! Excellent Educational Tool!


Thank you Very Much Paul Kuster

 & Laura Griffin, for coming up with,

 and promoting, this wonderful idea!



There’s no question that over the past 2 decades, there’s been a

heightened awareness for the environment. One of the more important

areas is how we obtain electricity. One of the proposals has been in the

form of Industrial wind turbines.  We feel there’s a better way to answer

the question of how to retain a reasonable quality of life with a view to

enhancing the environment that we could all mutually benefit. We feel trees

are the answer and wherever you may reside, you can participate.

Here are some of the reasons trees are a superior way to enhance the

environment over industrial wind turbines;

  • Trees absorb CO2 and release O2. An acre ( .405 hectares) of trees
  • will absorb enough CO2 to offset a city driven car for a year, while
  • producing enough O2 for 18 people per day. IWT’s can do neither.
  • IWT’s have a large initial carbon footprint before becoming operable.
  • Trees start their work right away with no initial carbon footprint.
  • IWT’s have within their components, many detrimental compounds
  • detrimental to the environment. Turbine blades contain bisphenol A,
  • a known carcinogen and the hubs contain gear oil that has high levels
  • of mercury. Trees, of course, are without these issues.
  • Trees are superior to IWT’s when it comes to preventing erosion,
  • providing shade, providing habitat for birds and attracting many other
  • forms of wildlife. IWT’s in fact enhance erosion, kill bats and birds and
  • provide no attraction to wildlife.
  • IWT’s are infinitely more costly than trees, trees require no electricity
  • to operate and are for the most part, maintenance free. Trees have
  • proven to enhance property values and provide years of enjoyment no
  • matter if you live in a rural or urban environment.
  • IWT’s require to work in tandem with other power generators. While
  • we’ve essentially eliminated coal as a source of generation, gas plants
  • have come on line to replace coal and to act to back-up wind generation.
  • In order to do this, gas plants run in the most inefficient way possible and
  • in the final tally don’t substantially reduce emissions at all. Trees of course
  • require no gas plant backup and can help reduce heating and cooling costs.

     We listed here just a few of the benefits of trees. We can replace IWT’s with trees

                 and accomplish our goals for a better environment.

                                 This is the REAL green movement.


The People of Ontario Want, and Deserve, Some Straight Answers!


Eric Jelinski
Eric Jelinski 9:38pm Aug 12
Sharing a letter that a friend has sent to Bob Chiarelli, Ontario Minister of Energy,

Dear Minister Chiarelli,

RE: Electricity Questions:

As you may or may not be aware for the past several years I have taken an interest (some would say compulsive) in the electricity sector and during that time have written extensively in several media outlets including the Financial Post. I also took directorships in organizations like Energy Probe and Wind Concerns Ontario both of whom have expressed concern about the aggressive push, by your government, for the addition of unreliable, intermittent and expensive wind and solar electricity generation. This letter is not meant to argue your support or otherwise of “renewable energy” but to present questions that baffle me and many others. The questions are outcrops of the various legislative and regulatory changes the OLP have made from within your ministry since first elected as the governing party in 2003. The questions below are begging for answers so I would greatly appreciate your giving serious thought to them and recognize that the intent is for enlightenment. Convince me and others that your Ministry does have a plan that will present industry with competitive electricity pricing without driving residential ratepayers into “energy poverty”!

Here are my questions:

Q.1.The Ontario government hands out up to $8,500 to purchasers of EVs (electric vehicles) if they buy a high end $85,000 Tesla automobile and presumably don’t collect an “ecotax” but if an Ontario resident purchases a 12 volt replacement battery for their car they pay $15.00. A Telsa battery is 375 volts so shouldn’t your government be collecting an ecotax of $470.00 from the buyer instead of handing out $8,500 as a grant?

Q.2.Why do all of the local distribution companies (LDC) hand out discount coupons encouraging us to purchase CFL bulbs that contains mercury; a deadly toxin and where the packaging suggests you almost have to use a hazmat suit if it breaks to clean it up?

Q.3.Why does the Ontario Ministry of Energy classify “conservation” as a generation source of electricity if we can’t plug our toaster into an outlet powered by “conservation” that will actually toast it?

Q.4.What grid is “conservation” generation connected to and is any of it exported?

Q.5.Why did you, as Energy Minister, order the creation of a service “Stream” that offers large industrial companies very cheap rates, for “consuming more electricity” when the rest of Ontario is told to “conserve?

Q.6.Why is the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) allowed to claim they will pick up your “old” fridge or freezer for “FREE” when they know the costs to pick them up are billed to the ratepayers via the Global Adjustment Mechanism (GAM)?

Q.7.Why do all the TV, radio and newspaper ads that the OPA and the LDCs contract for in the media, at the end of the commercial, say or state: “paid for by the OPA” when the truth is that the ads are “paid for by the ratepayers of Ontario via the GAM?

Q.8.Why are average ratepayers obliged to pay the costs of meteorological stations erected at industrial wind turbine installations to measure the electricity they may have generated but are being paid to NOT PRODUCE power?

Q.9.Why is the 36 page submission to the OEB (EB-2013-0326) by the OPA for the $483.4 million “Conservation” spending planned for 2014 considered a “business plan” when they have no specific information on the makeup of that almost $500 million spending of ratepayer dollars?

Q.10.Why does the term “Global Adjustment Mechanism” contain the word “Global” when the makeup of the GAM is all driven by the contracts signed by the OPA and other directives/regulations issued by the Ministry of Energy and apply only to Ontario’s ratepayers?

Q.11.Why is the 10% reduction on our electricity bills (due to expire December 31, 2015) referred to as a “Clean” Energy Benefit when it is a benefit that is the responsibility of the taxpayers; so shouldn’t it be labeled a “Taxpayer Energy Benefit?

Q.12.Why are consumers of electricity charged for electricity they never consumed, ie; “line losses”, no matter how far they are from the generator of that electricity and why has it been moved from the “electricity” line to the “delivery” line on our bills?

Q.13. Don’t you think this (Q.12.) is something that David Orazietti, Minister of Government and Consumer Services should look into and perhaps seek clarification on Q.6. And Q.7?

Q.14.Why hand out grants (funded by Ontario’s ratepayers via the GAM) of $650 towards the installation of energy efficient air conditioners while handing out only $431.76 on average (2012) to a only a few (.002% ) ratepayers suffering from “energy poverty” and may have to freeze in the cold or forgo nutritious food because their local distribution company has cut or threatened to cut their power?

Q.15.Why did you claim Ontario had generated a $6 billion profit from selling our excess electricity via the export market when that number was simply what we received for selling excess power that ratepayers had paid for at prices that were multiples of the $6 billion?

Q.16.Why did George Smitherman negotiate that “sole sourced” Samsung contract without the company having demonstrated any previous expertise in the generation of electricity from either wind or solar?

I have many more questions related to the activities of your Ministry over the past decade but have kept the list relatively short so I sincerely hope you will have the time to answer the few that I have raised. With the legislative recess set to go through to October 20, 2014 it would appear that you or your Ministry staff will have more than sufficient time to respond.

On another note some of my questions are directed at the Ministry of the Environment & Climate Change who are responsible for the issuing of the Renewable Energy Approvals (REA). Rather than writing a separate letter to Minister Murray I would appreciate it if you could have someone in your office co-ordinate his Ministry’s response. I have copied him via his e-mail address but for your edification here are those questions!

Questions for your colleague, Glen Murray in the Ministry of the Environment Chair:

Q. 1. Why does the Ministry of the Environment [and Climate Change] issue Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) when the applications are incomplete and lacking in the detail required under the rules/regulations established under the Green Energy and Economy Act?

Q.2. Why is the MoE not equipped to measure “infra-sound” when it has been found to be a major issue in many jurisdictions; causing health problems and is measurable?

Q.3. Why is the MoE unable to order compliance requirements to wind turbine developers when their “audible” noise limits exceed the guidelines/rules established?

Q.4. Why does the MoE issue REAs that are located in Important Bird Areas (IBA) that may endanger many “species at risk”?

I wish to thank you, Minister Chiarelli and Minister Murray, in advance, for your anticipated cogent reply to each of my questions as it will assist me and many of my friends, relatives and media followers in understanding exactly what it is that the Ontario Liberal Party is attempting to do with the Energy sector in the Province. The impact of the “sea change” that has occurred in the “Energy” portfolio are immense, affecting so many facets of the lives of the residents of the province. The latter point is particularly noticeable when toting up the directives (85) that the Ministry has issued to just the OPA since that entity was created by one of your predecessors, Dwight Duncan, in the Energy chair you now occupy. Many other directives/letters have been issued to the OEB, the OPG and Hydro One so it is obvious that there is a plan. I believe it is important to convey to the residents and voters exactly what that “plan” is and why it has been enacted in Ontario but is being abandoned elsewhere around the world.

I await your edification!

Can Ontario Survive 4 More Years of Liberal Mismanagement?


Wynne Government Gambling Ontario’s Future. Again.
Budget 2.0 still hikes taxes, borrows at record levels, and puts future taxpayers at risk of massive service cuts and tax hikes

TORONTO, ON: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) is disappointed with the Wynne government for reintroducing the same risky budget that not only triggered an election, but also caused a credit rating agency to lower the province’s credit rating outlook from stable to negative.

“The May Day budget was a reckless and irresponsible fiscal plan for Ontario,” said CTF’s Ontario director Candice Malcolm. “By growing program spending and relying heavily on borrowing, the government is putting us all at risk of a debt crisis, and putting future taxpayers on the hook for today’s mistakes.”

Ontario’s credit rating was already downgraded following the 2012 budget. Moody’s once again lowered Ontario’s credit outlook on July 2, 2014, following the election outcome, signalling future downgrades that will make future borrowing more expensive for taxpayers.

The new Ontario budget, like the old one, still spends $130.4 billion and features income tax hikes, new taxes on flying and tobacco, a new payroll tax, a new borrowing scheme for subways in Toronto, corporate welfare slush funds, and a $12.5 billion deficit.

“Their plan is a gamble,” said Malcolm. “They are hoping desperately, and against the odds, that by borrowing and implementing a tax-and-spend agenda, it will somehow spur economic growth to balance the budget in two years. That is the equivalent of a person on the verge of bankruptcy taking a cash advance from their credit card, going to a casino, and putting it all on 25 red.”

Ontario has run seven straight deficits and borrows more than any other provincial or state level government in the world. Our per capita provincial debt has surpassed $20,000.

“The Wynne government is in denial. After consecutive deficits, record debt, wasted stimulus spending, and out-of-control borrowing, Ontario is no better off,” said Malcolm. “But they stubbornly continue to repeat the same mistakes and ignore warnings from their own civil servants, banks, professors, and economists.

“They are purposely ignoring widespread economic concerns and doubling down on their failed ideas. It’s a recipe for disaster,” concluded Malcolm.

By Candice Malcolm
Posted: July 14, 2014

I’m Sure Somehow, a Liberal will Benefit from These Transactions, But Not Us.

LCBO? Hydro One? Wynne’s budget relies on $3.15B from asset sales, but offers no specifics on what will be sold

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne briefs the media following the Throne Speech at Queens Park in Toronto on Thursday, July 3, 2014.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young  Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne briefs the media following the Throne Speech at Queens Park in Toronto on Thursday, July 3, 2014.

TORONTO — Ontario’s Liberal government is counting on billions of dollars from the sale of provincial assets so it should be able to say exactly what will be sold to raise that money, the NDP said Tuesday.

“The Liberal Party’s infrastructure program clearly states that the plan is to pocket $3.15 billion from the sale of public assets,” New Democrat Peter Tabuns said during question period.

“If you know you’re going to raise at least $3.15 billion from overall asset sales, you also know how much you’re planning to get from the whole or partial sale of OPG, LCBO and Hydro One.”

The Liberals set up an advisory council, chaired by TD Bank Group CEO Ed Clark, to find ways to “optimize” the value of Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board, which could involve inviting pension funds to invest in the agencies while retaining public ownership.


It’s too early to provide details on what could be the subject of a total or partial sale, Premier Kathleen Wynne told the legislature.

“We have asked Ed Clark and his team to look at the assets that are owned by the people of Ontario to make sure that they are working to the very best benefit of the people of Ontario,” said Wynne. “But I don’t have the specific answers at this point because we’ve asked him to do that work.”

The New Democrats are worried about “a fire sale” of provincial assets, and claimed the government plans a whole or partial sale of the LCBO and the hydro utilities, which they warned would drive up electricity bills even higher.

“You don’t burn the furniture to heat the house, so will the premier tell Ontarians what public assets she’s planning to sell off,” asked NDP Leader Andrea Horwath.

“They listed LCBO, OPG and Hydro One because they are, let’s say, targets,” added Tabuns.

Interim Progressive Conservative Leader Jim Wilson said it was a good idea for the government to look at ways to squeeze the most value as possible out of its assets, as long as the public remains the majority owner in each case.

“There’s money tied up in those assets that could be used to improve services or to reduce the deficit,” said Wilson. “My preference is no outright sales, no 100 per cent sales. We should hold the majority of shares in these companies.”


The government is also looking at sales of the shares it purchased in General Motors during the recession as well as some of real estate including the LCBO and OPG buildings in downtown Toronto, to help trim a $12.5 billion deficit.

The president and CEO of Infrastructure Ontario, the provincial agency that will take the lead on the sale of government assets, is Bert Clark, son of Ed Clark, the man appointed by Wynne to chair the Liberal’s advisory committee on asset sales.

“Obviously, it doesn’t look good,” said Tabuns. “I think the whole process is misguided, top to bottom, and that just adds to it.”

The Tories said they were confident the Liberals implemented checks and balances to make sure “something funny doesn’t happen” with father and son on different sides of the negotiating table while discussing government asset sales.

“I’d give them the benefit of the doubt right now because they’re both very professional people,” said Wilson.

Deputy Premier Deb Matthews said she didn’t see any conflict at all with Ed Clark chairing the government’s advisory committee and Bert Clark heading the provincial agency that would lead the asset sales.

“Anybody who knows Ed Clark, and looks at his history not just in his role as a banker but his personal philanthropy, knows this is a man who is above reproach,” she said. “He wants to help the government maximize our assets.”

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!


Quote by Steven Cooper - 'These pulsation waves of air occur at a very low rate and activate the brain's sensory receptors. It has been suggested that the brain becomes confused, the brain thinks it receives noise, but there is no noise - just the pulsations".

Gerold's Blog

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


Pioneer in Breaking Political News, Election Coverage, Polling Analysis and Fact-Checking

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


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.


Wandering Words

Patti Kellar


John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem