Archive for the ‘energy issues for canada’ Category

Press Release – Wind Farm Demonstration in Paris

October 6, 2008

Editor

If you are fighting wind farms in North America, you are not alone. You have probably been told how well wind is working in Europe (it’s not) and that we should do the same. Well we should do the same.

Stop the wind scourge now!

.

Saturday Oct 4th, in Paris, 2000 to 3000 people coming from France and
various European countries demonstrated peacefully against windfarms.
Antoine Waechter was among them. Green candidate in the 1988 French
presidential election, Mr Waechter subsequently split from the Greens to
found the Independent Ecological Movement. He is shown on the picture
reading my placard. To the right of the picture, the mayor of a village in
France whose inhabitants ALL decided to sell their houses when a windfarm
project was announced in the vicinity. If you wish to know more about the
Village for Sale, please advise.

We received  messages of support coming from all over the
world, including Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Puerto Rico,
Ecuador, South Africa, Japan and Slovenia. See :
http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/

The demonstration and conference was backed by 176 associations and
federations : http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/

An international platform against windfarms was founded the same day, as
follows :

*Press release
*Paris, Saturday Oct. 4th 2008

*Founding of the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW). *
*
*In Paris today, on the occasion of the international demonstration against
wind farms, German, Belgian, Spanish and French federations and associations
have founded the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW).

This project has received the support of colleagues from 16 countries
representing several hundred federations and associations.

The founding members of this platform have agreed to make the following
declaration :
*1) Ecological deception and financial scandal*.

It has now been proved that industrial windpower does not reduce CO2
emissions and therefore does not contribute
to the fight against global warming. This is principally due to the
intermittent and uncontrollable nature of wind, which makes it necessary to
rely on the back-up of polluting fossil-fuels power stations, 24 hours a
day.

Industrial windpower is subsidized by the taxpayer-consumer.
In France for example, if the national plan is realized ( 12,500 wind
turbines ! ) this burden will amount to 2.5 billion euros annually. In
Germany, it is already costing 4 billion euros a year.
At a time when Europe is facing a deep economic crisis, it is not acceptable
that the standard of living of Europeans be further reduced in favour of
businessmen whose objective seems to be maximizing profits whatever the
consequences.
Industrial windfarms are a threat to the environment.
Landscapes, the natural and cultural heritage, wildlife, quality of life,
the security and health of Europeans are in danger !

*2) The demands made by EPAW : an immediate moratorium and more
transparency.*
The platform demands an immediate moratorium with the suspension of all
windfarm projects, approved or not.

The platform demands that be assessed, under the control of an independent
body, the objective and undisputable effects of wind farms from an
energetical, ecological and social point of view – respectively.
The platform finally demands that the guaranteed pricing of wind-produced
electricity be made the object of both a public and a parliamentary debate,
at national and european levels.

Signed by :
European Associations and Federations participating in the reunion of
October 4th 2008
Spain : Iberica 2000
Belgica : Vent Contraire, Vent de Raison
France : FED : Fédération Environnement Durable (Fédération nationale),
France : FNASSEM – Fédération Nationale des Associations de Sauvegarde ses
Sites et Monuments
Germany : BLS (Bundesverband Landschaftsschutz – landscape protection,
federation of 800 local committees),
Germany : NAEB (Nationale Anti EEG Bewegung – against windfarms)

Contacts :
Kléber ROSSILLON (FNASSEM) : 06 07 21 88 64 kleber.rossilllon@wanadoo.fr
Emmanuel du BOULLAY (FED) : 06 13 54 49 07 emmanuel.du-boullay@laposte.net

Mark Duchamp + 34 679 12 99 97
INCONVENIENT VIDEOS : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729

The dark side of windfarms : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
Pictures of windfarm victims ( eagles etc. ), of turbines on fire, of
collapsed turbines, of soil & water contamination etc. :
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

ESPAÑOL :
Videos inconvenientes : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729
La cara oscura de los parques eólicos:
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1255
Fotos de víctimas de parques eólicos ( águilas etc. ), incendios de
aerogeneradores, contaminación de las aguas por sus lubricantes etc. :
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp



BLACKOUT BRITAIN WARNING – A Warning for Canada and the USA

September 10, 2008

IF you live in North America you better pay attention! The renewable industry is a sham. It is designed to wreak havoc on you and the economy. This is not by mistake – it was planned and now the plan is in full swing. Without reliable energy, you and the economy are screwed.

Unless you want to move to China or India.

Read the

Green Agenda

Daily Express

BLACKOUT BRITAIN WARNING

Story Image

Power cuts ‘could spark disorder’

Sunday September 7,2008

By Jason Groves

Britain is “quite simply running out of power” and blackouts are almost inevitable within the next few years.

This is the stark warning from the head of an energy think-tank who believes power cuts could be serious enough to spark civil disorder.

Campbell Dunford of the respected Renewable Energy Foundation  said: “It’s almost too late to do anything about it. Nothing will stop us having to pay very high prices for power in future.

“If we pull our finger out now we can limit blackouts but it’s going to be pretty grim whatever happens.”

Gordon Brown pledged last week to end Britain’s reliance on the “dictatorship of oil” but Mr Dunford believes the Prime Minister’s new interest in the security of energy supplies may have come too late.

Only last Thursday, National Grid issued an urgent call for power after a series of power station breakdowns. Suppliers were asked to bring all their available generating capacity online, including costly oil-fired stations.

In May, hundreds of thousands of people in Cleveland, Cheshire, Lincolnshire and London suffered blackouts when seven power stations were closed.

The electricity industry estimates it needs to spend £100billion on new stations to ensure supplies.

It criticises ministers for focusing too heavily on such untried renewable energy sources as wind and tide power, rather than making sure that secure new power generation was put in place.

The report concludes: “A near fatal preoccupation with politically attractive but marginal forms of renewables seems to have caused a blindness towards the weakening of the UK’s power stations and a dangerous and helpless vulnerability to natural gas.”

The REF warns that as many as nine million people could be plunged into fuel poverty, defined as spending more than 10 per cent of their income on energy bills.

Ministers are already under massive pressure to do more to help people trapped in fuel poverty this winter because of soaring prices. Up to six million families are expected to face a stark choice between heating and eating following the series of massive energy price rises that have made a mockery of Labour’s target to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016.

Mr Dunford said worse was to come: “Certainly we’re going to be heading to eight or nine million in fuel poverty.

“There’s a very real chance that power, will not even be there when you need it. That’s when you start worrying about social disorder.”

Ministers have launched a belated plan to plug Britain’s energy gap, including the construction of a string of nuclear power stations. power stations take up to a decade to build though and many experts believe the Government’s move has come too late.

Full story at Daily Express

Energy Price Shock -Two Energy Firms to Raise Prices

August 21, 2008

Editor:
If you live in North America take a close look at what is coming. The Greens want to destroy the economies of
the industrialized world, via political pressure and the blocking of opening oil reserves and new nuclear power.
Expect massive increases in your electric bill in the very near future. Watch as more and more manufacturing flees North America and heads to China and other Asian countries.
While China and others continue to build coal plants – we will rely on expensive intermittent wind and solar for our power.
Why?
Read the Green Agenda – after which you should be rightfully pissed at your elected officials.

Energy firms E.On and Scottish and Southern Energy are to raise gas and electricity prices by up to 29%.

E.On said it would up its gas prices by 26% and electricity bills by 16% on 22 August for domestic customers.

Gas rings

The move comes shortly after British Gas announced a record rise in bills

Scottish and Southern followed a few hours later by announcing a 29.2%
increase in gas bills, with electricity tariffs up by 19.2% on 25
August.

This is E.On’s second price rise for domestic customers this year. In
February it put up gas bills by 15% and electricity tariffs by 9.7%.


We
are extremely concerned that the one in three pensioner households
likely to be living in fuel poverty by the end of the year will feel
forced to cut back on essential food or fuel

Gordon Lishman, Age Concern

Complete Article

The Wind Energy Scam- Compare the Numbers

July 11, 2008

Editor:

Let me start by saying, I’m no fan of Mr.Harper.

Both Harper and Dion are TRAITORS.

Dion wants Canada to be ruled by the unelected officials at the UN

and

Harper wants to integrate us with the US and Mexico.

Either way Canada will no longer call the shots concerning it’s future.

Dion and Suzuki keep screaming about “EVIL CO2″.

They, along with the wind industry keep telling us we should be more like Denmark and Germany.

Why? It’s not because of their low CO2 emissions.

Why is India Electricity – production by source:fossil fuel: 81.7%
hydro: 14.5%
nuclear: 3.4%
other: 0.3% (2001)
and China exempt form Kyoto. Their CO2 emissions are higher than ours.
Do some research.

Denmark
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 82.7%
hydro: 0.1%
nuclear: 0%
other: 17.3% (2001)
(They have been using wind since the 70’s)

Germany
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 61.8%
hydro: 4.2%
nuclear: 29.9%
other: 4.1% (2001)
(We are told that Germany has more wind energy than anyone,yet Germany is in the process of building 20+ new coal plants)

Canada
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 28%
hydro: 57.9%
nuclear: 12.9%
other: 1.3% (2001)

Looks to me that the rest of the world should be following Canada.

We are told we need to follow the examples of Denmark and Germany. Why?
Even if they managed to cut their emissions from fossil fuel by 50% they would still have higher emissions than us.

We need to recall our elected officials today and demand an explanation.

Ontario could have put the scrubbers on the coal plants and built a new nuke for about 10 billion- according to the senior policy adviser for the ministry of energy.
Instead we are spending between 60 and 70 billion on a faulty dream.

No money for health, education or agriculture.
There is no excuse for the massive fraud taking place in this country.

Read Agenda 21 and Cloak of Green both found here

Have some fun – Google Enron,Al Gore,Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton.

http://www.windfarms.wordpress.com.

Enjoy the day and the scam

Ron

Britain’s Climate Madness

July 3, 2008

Absurd and Costly

There is not the faintest chance that 7,000 wind turbines can be constructed in this time, given the construction capacity restrictions and tight timetable. But, even if the turbines

were built, this would not be the end of the matter. Britain would still require a considerable back-up of conventional electricity-generating capacity because the turbines would frequently produce no electricity at all, given the fluctuation in wind speeds. Paul Golby, Chief Executive of E.ON UK, has said that this back-up capacity would have to amount to 90% of the capacity of the wind turbines, if supplies were to be reliable. This would be an absurd, and costly, misallocation of resources, with the extra costs falling on households and businesses. But, costs apart, there is yet another problem. And that is whether the necessary back-up capacity is likely to be available.

The current Government has woefully neglected Britain’s energy infrastructure, and much of Britain’s current electricity-generating capacity is due for closure over the next 10 to 15 years. Most of Britain’s ageing nuclear power stations are due to be decommissioned, and half of Britain’s coal-fired power stations are due to be retired because of the EU’s Large Combustion Power Directive (concerned with controlling emissions of, for example, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides). Under these circumstances, there is a very real risk that there will not be adequate conventional back-up capacity despite the Government’s welcome acceptance of the need for nuclear power (there will inevitably be delays in construction) and the operation of new gas-fired capacity (which, incidentally, makes Britain unduly dependent on imports, as our own supplies are dwindling fast).

The prospect of power cuts is, therefore, all too real. Brutally, the lights could go out, and business and the public services, now so dependent on computers, would suffer. The folly of putting so many eggs in the basket of wind power is the height of irresponsibility.

The EU’s Renewables Directive: Disproportionate Burden

The Government’s ‘dash for wind’ in order to develop a “low-carbon economy” is, of course, part of its climate-change policy of cutting carbon emissions in order to “combat global warming”. Any expansion of nuclear power would also curtail carbon emissions, and, indeed, if one believes that a low-carbon economy is a good idea (perhaps for security reasons as well as ‘saving the planet’), one might ask why not allocate far more resources to nuclear power and far fewer to renewables.

Alas, this would not be permitted under the EU’s 2008 Renewables Directive.(1) Under this Directive, the UK has agreed to meet 15% of its energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. Whilst renewables include biomass, solar power, wind, wave/tide, and hydroelectricity, nuclear power is excluded. Insofar as the Renewables Directive is part of the EU’s policy of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990, this is perverse to say the least.

Whilst the UK has a 15% renewables target for 2020, just 1.5% of energy consumption was met by permissible renewables in 2006.(2) The UK has committed itself, therefore, to increase its renewables share ten-fold by 2020. With the possible exceptions of Malta and Luxembourg, the UK is faced with by far the greatest challenge in reaching its 2020 target. In addition, the unit costs in the UK are relatively high because Britain lacks access to cheap biomass resources in the electricity and heat sectors, and is placing greater reliance on high cost, expensive electricity technologies, such as wind (mainly) and wave/tidal. By contrast several EU countries are well-placed, including Austria, Finland, and Sweden, as are many of the central and eastern European countries.

It is, therefore, unsurprising that the UK is likely to carry a disproportionate burden of the costs of meeting the EU’s 2020 renewables target. According to a study by Pöyry Energy Consulting, the UK could carry around 20-25% of the total EU costs.(3) Pöyry has estimated that the annual cost in 2020 could be around £150 to £200 per UK household, and the lifetime costs up to 2020 would be £1,800, even as high as £2,800, per UK household. These are significant sums, and they are likely to be under-estimates.

Given my earlier comment that the Government’s plans for 7,000 wind turbines will not be achieved by 2020, there is no chance that we will meet the renewables target. (And, in any case, 7,000 turbines, even if built, are apparently inadequate for Britain to meet the 15% target.) The Government is living in fantasy-land – but it seems hell-bent on pursuing an energy policy which will be costly, will dangerously distort energy policy, and will leave the country vulnerable to black-outs.

The Economic Effects

Even if the lights stay on, it is clear that the Government’s current strategy will lead to higher and less competitive energy prices in Britain, other things being equal. For households, especially low income and pensioner households, this will bite into general living standards. Businesses, especially energy intensive industries, will continue to lose competitiveness and will migrate overseas to, say, India or China. The Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG) estimates that various ‘green measures’ (the Renewables Obligation, the Climate Change Levy, and the costs of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme) already account for a quarter of total energy costs for their members. The situation will surely deteriorate. Britain’s chemicals, cement, and steel industries, to name but three, are likely to shrink, jobs will be lost, and the balance of payments will deteriorate.

Wind power: is it a realistic option?

July 3, 2008

Wind power: is it a realistic option? – Money Week

Is wind power as green as it seems?

Denmark is the world’s most wind-intensive state with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. But this figure is misleading, says Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies. Not one conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed.

In fact, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.

Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is “expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green”, says Lodge.

Full Story-Money Week

Look out, Mr Cameron, or we'll all be in the dark

July 2, 2008

Editor:
This is a good piece, a story that has been told over and over. An important story that most will never see.
The govt. and the media keep playing the global warming game, in order to tax the hell out of the
citizenry. All brought to by the UN via Agenda 21.

By Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 29/06/2008

Have your say
Read comments

Since
Gordon Brown on Thursday launched what he called “the greatest
revolution in our energy policy since the advent of nuclear power”,
centred on building thousands of new wind turbines, let us start with a
simple fact.

Nothing conveys the futility of
wind power more vividly than this: that all the electricity generated
by the 2,000 wind turbines already built in Britain is still less than
that produced by a single medium-sized conventional power station.

There
are nearly 50 nuclear, gas or coal-fired power plants in Britain today
each of which produces more electricity in a year than all those 2,000
turbines put together.

advertisement

I
make no apology for returning to this subject because the “£100 billion
green energy strategy” published last week, by what is now laughably
known as the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
(BERR), contains not only many smaller deceptions and self-deceptions
but one so great that almost everyone has fallen for it.

The
starting point is the EU’s requirement that, to combat the “threat of
climate change”, we must drastically reduce our CO2 emissions, chiefly
by building thousands more wind turbines.

It is
quite clear from the paper that BERR’s officials know we haven’t the
faintest hope of meeting our EU target in this way. So its
number-crunchers have been working overtime to squeeze down the amount
of energy we source from wind to the lowest figure it thinks can be
made to sound plausible.

Until last week BERR had
been claiming that our EU requirement meant that we must generate 38
per cent of our electricity from renewables, the largest contribution
coming from 11,000 offshore turbines, representing 33 gigawatts (GW) of
capacity. But all this has changed dramatically.

They now talk only about the need to meet 32 per cent of our total EU
renewables target through our methods of electricity generation, with
only 32 per cent of that needing to come from wind – and that, they
say, can be done with a mere 7,000 new offshore and onshore turbines.

However,
our present generating capacity is 76GW. By 2020, on projected demand,
to replace one third of one third of our capacity with wind power would
mean generating an average of 10GW.

And herein
lies the central misconception which bedevils the entire debate.
Because of the wind’s intermittency, turbines generate on average at
less than a third of their capacity. Thus to contribute 10GW would need
30GW of capacity, which would require up to twice as many turbines as
ministers are talking about – needing to be erected at a rate of more
than four every working day between now and 2020.

  • Read more from Christopher Booker
  • In
    practical terms, even if they grossly bend the planning rules (as MPs
    voted for last week), there isn’t the remotest chance that anything
    like this number of turbines could be built in time to meet their
    target.

    For instance, the world only has five of
    the giant barges that can install monster turbines offshore – and for
    more than half the year our weather conditions make installation
    impossible anyway.

    But in addition we should also
    need to build at least 20 new conventional power stations simply to
    provide back-up for all the times when the wind is not blowing – at a
    time when, within seven years, we already stand to lose 40 per cent of
    our existing generating capacity through the closure of almost all our
    ageing nuclear power plants and half our major coal and oil-fired power
    stations (due to the crippling cost of complying with an EU
    anti-pollution directive).

    It is a total mess. The
    reality is that, thanks to the dithering and wishful thinking of our
    politicians, it may already be too late to avert that breakdown of our
    electricity supply which would be one of the most serious disasters
    Britain has ever faced.

    And, ironically, no one
    at present looks more likely to inherit this mess than David Cameron –
    whose only response to last week’ s pie-in-the-sky from Gordon Brown
    was to say that the Government should have been building all those
    useless windmills years ago.

    Warming denial a ‘high crime’ says Nasa chief

    James
    Hansen, the head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),
    is to ask Congress for the chief executives of US energy companies to
    face trial for the “high crime” of denying global warming.

    Since
    his historic speech to Congress in July 1988, Mr Hansen and his close
    ally Al Gore have done more than anyone else to promote the warming
    scare which has since swept the world. Yet this is the man who last
    summer was forced to correct erroneous temperature figures on his
    influential GISS website, to show that the highest recorded US surface
    temperatures were not in the last 10 years, as Hansen claimed, but in
    the 1930s.

    His latest outburst is only one of many
    recent signs of desperation in the warmist lobby, as falling global
    temperatures threaten to undermine the central tenet of their
    orthodoxy.

    Far from continuing to rise in sync
    with CO2 levels, as the theory says they should, temperatures have not
    only been dropping but are now lower than when Hansen and Gore set the
    scare in train in 1988. (For latest graph see the Watts Up With That website.)

    Even fanatical upholders of the dogma are having to admit that warming
    seems “temporarily” to have stopped (along with the sunspot activity
    they try to ignore), although they weakly claim, on no plausible
    evidence, that in 10 years’ time it will somehow return worse than ever.

    keep reading

    Wind power was useless in blackout

    June 1, 2008

    Editor:
    Another example of the importance of wind energy.

    The Ont. govt. is a regular visitor to this site and should have learned something by now. I’ve come to the conclusion they suffer from one of the following.

    1) They can’t comprehend what they read.

    2) They are stupid and suffer from very low IQs.

    3) They are evil traitors and are following the UN – New World Order Agenda.

    Which one do you think it is?

    With these fools at the helm, it is easy to understand why our Health Care, Education, Agriculture and Manufacturing sectors are in such disarray.

    Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
    industrialized civilizations collapse?
    Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
    ?”
    Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

    Read Agenda 21
    Now!

    .

    Wind power was useless in blackout

    The British Wind Energy Association claims that there are more than 2,000 turbines in the UK with an installed capacity of 2,500 megawatts. Where was all this megawattage when it was needed on Tuesday, when 500,000 homes were blacked out as Sizewell B and eight other power stations shut down?

    The answer is simple: the 2,000 turbines were impotent and would have made the situation worse had the grid operators tried to feed in their spurious outputs.

    Coincidentally, Government figures describing the CO2 savings achieved in 2007 show no contribution from wind. The wind industry received nearly £320 million during 2007 in subsidies — from us, the consumers.

    A letter by Bob Graham, Inchberry, Morayshire to the Telegraph

    1 June 2008

    School of Al Gore – your energy future looks bleak

    April 2, 2008

    Editor
    How much longer will Gore and the energy swindle last? It is amazing that the media keeps it’s mouth zippered. Maybe it’s time to call the media and explain to them that they need us more than we need them. Remember, if you ignore them their numbers drop and that will cost them, just like these lame energy deals are going to cost you.
    If you are going to take a hit it only seems fair they, who refuse to broadcast the truth take a hit as well.

    Walter E. Williams

    One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, “America is addicted to oil, which is often …
    Michael J. Economides
    All candidates have been Gored, accepting the most outlandish and easily discountable environmental gobbledygook as facts.
    Christopher C. Horner
    Straight from the Climatology School of Al Gore.
    .

    Climate Change? Forget About It: McGuinty Liberals

    March 27, 2008

    Editor
    Dalton McGuinty: Climate Change denier or just a realist?”

    Dalton McGuinty is a fool. I’ve said it before and I will continue to say it until I’m convinced otherwise. As far as energy policy is concerned, he has allowed global warming fanatics like David Suzuki, Al Gore, Robert Hornung, of CanWEA, and the media to make the decisions.

    We do not have leaders in this province or country. A leader would lead. Our elected officials are followers. They follow fanatics, polls and the media. Hell, Gordon Campbell, Premiere of BC, says his provincial budget is partly based on a book he read, that was written by Al, the scam artist, Gore.

    Give the energy policy back to the people who know what they are doing. Energy is too important to be left to the whims of politicians.

    The coal plants will never close. McGuinty even made a statement to that affect. He said he would shut them down but keep them operational in case we need them in the future. Instead of worrying about the C02 boogie man, put the scrubbers on the coal plants. Since McGuinty first came to power in 2003 he has put the health of thousands at risk, a risk that could have been removed by installing the scrubbers.

    You can bet your last dollar that we are going to need the the coal plants. Look at Germany says Robert Hornung, they are the leader in wind power. Ya Robert, lets look at Germany, they have the most wind turbines, they also have very high electrical rates and the wind turbines work so well that Germany is in the process of building 26 coal plants.

    The coal plants will never close in Ontario.

    That’s a Fact! Jack

    Don’t get me started on Health Care and Education

    .

    Climate Change? Forget About It: McGuinty Liberals
    Liberal Premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty: Climate Change denier or just a realist?

    (Note: This is a perfect follow-up to my previous post, Higher Energy Bills Likely With Emissions Reductions: Harper )

    I didn’t make this up. Ontario’s Liberal government yesterday brought down its socialistic budget… and, according to the Toronto Sun’s Lorrie Goldstein, did not really pay anything more than throwaway, afterthought lip service to the supposedly most critically important issue facing the planet, global warming/climate change. Emphasis mine.

    This is interesing. And it speaks volumes…

    What ever happened to fighting the greatest threat known to mankind in yesterday’s Ontario budget?

    Incredibly, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan didn’t mention “global warming” at all in his 14-page budget speech. “Climate change” got only one mention, in one brief sentence, on page 10.

    Even that was two pages back of his apparently all-important plan “to enhance the Ontario Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit.”

    The budget itself devoted just three of 158 pages (1.9%) to all environmental issues, many of which have nothing to do with global warming.

    (…)

    Finally, and most tellingly, the media didn’t ask one question of Duncan, Conservative Leader John Tory or NDP Leader Howard Hampton in three separate news conferences, about Premier Dalton McGuinty’s plans to fight climate change — not even as we all merrily prepare for “Earth Hour” this Saturday.

    the canadian sentinel.

    Send a message this Earth Day

    FLICK ON