Archive for the ‘Harper energy policy’ Category

Tories oppose carbon tax

January 7, 2008

Editor:
Why the big push from the advisory committee? The scam that is global warming is starting to fall apart. Talk of global cooling is starting to appear. Carbon tax has nothing to do with global warming. Never did. It’s about control and cash.
That’s what it should be called, “Control and Cash” not “Cap and Trade”.

I’m not a big fan of Stephen Harper or his govt, I am however, a big fan of Canada and it’s people. Carbon trading will have adverse affects on the economy and the jobs people depend on and therefore it should not be implemented. I am therefore asking that you encourage Mr. Harper to base his policy on up to date science.

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

Tories oppose carbon tax

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has flatly opposed the idea of a carbon tax in the past, as has Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

On Monday, the federal Liberals seemed to be more receptive to the idea.

At a press conference in Ottawa, long-time Liberal and environmental activist John Godfrey said his party currently favours a carbon trading system, but will keep an open mind about carbon taxes and is waiting to see what research emerges on the topic.

The Conservatives, however, stuck to their position.

Environment Minister John Baird said Monday that he welcomes the report’s call for fixing a price on carbon, but would not consider a carbon tax. He said his government is instead working to regulate industry emissions by pushing for major polluters to significantly reduce their emissions by 2010 and encouraging an eventual carbon trading system in North America.

“What we’re not going to do is be like Stéphane Dion and the Liberals who constantly change their position and their policy,” Baird told reporters outside the House of Commons, referring to the Liberal’s apparent softening stance on a carbon tax.

“I understand the Liberals are now entertaining dumping their current policy — policy No. 8 by my count — and adopting a completely new policy. Every time a report comes out, you can’t change your mind.”

Murray said he is optimistic that Parliament will support carbon prices and measures like carbon taxes and carbon trading.

“It’s time to move the discussion forward because there isn’t a realistic case that we have seen yet where we can achieve reductions without a price [on carbon],” Murray said.

“You’ll now quietly hear people talking very seriously about cap and trade systems,” he added. “Our job [as an advisory panel] is to push government, not just the governing party, but Parliament and Canadians.”

‘Significant’ impact on Ontario, Alberta

Murray noted that the costs of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system could particularly be “significant” on Alberta’s oil producers and Ontario’s manufacturing sector.

But he stressed that in the development of any new policy, there would be investments in green technologies that would ultimately benefit both provinces significantly.

He said any policy would have to be created to ensure all regions are treated fairly, and that Canada’s industry as a whole doesn’t suddenly find itself on an “unlevel playing field” with the rest of the world.

Murray said the development of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system must include industry officials, environmentalists and representatives from all regions of the country.

Representatives from all sectors were already involved in the creation of the panel’s report, he said, noting that 65 groups were consulted and extensive economic modelling was done.

GDP wouldn’t be seriously affected

David McLaughlin, CEO of the advisory panel, said the report has concluded that Canada can feasibly reach its 2050 target of a 65 per cent emissions reduction, and that reaching this target will not be detrimental to the Canadian economy as a whole.

Canada has enough green technology in place to meet the goals, although the development of more technology would be encouraged, according to the panel’s findings.

“Our findings suggest in the long run the overall effect on Canada’s gross domestic product will not be significant, amounting to the equivalent of approximately one to two years of lost growth of GDP between now and 2050,” McLaughlin said at the press conference with Murray.

While the Liberals applauded parts of the report, they accused the Conservatives of putting constraints on the advisory panel, giving it a mandate to work with the Conservative government’s environmental targets, instead of the targets proposed under the international Kyoto Protocol.

“The report reminded us once again that this Conservative government has unilaterally abandoned Canada’s international legal obligations,” Godfrey said.

The Kyoto Protocol, which Canada signed under a Liberal government in 1998, requires that the country reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent from 1990 levels by 2012.

The Conservative government created new environmental goals in April 2007 that see Canada meeting its Kyoto commitments years behind schedule. Under the new plan, Canada’s overall emissions will be cut by up to 65 per cent by 2050 and 20 per cent cut by 2020, all based on 2006 levels.

McLaughlin said the panel used the new targets because they are feasible and focused on the long-term, giving Canada enough time to make necessary changes.

Kyoto’s targets are too focused on the short-term, McLaughlin said.

CBC

Advertisements

Kyoto snow job by Lorrie Goldstein

January 7, 2008

Editor:
I would like to thank Mr. Goldstein for bringing this to the attention of his readers. Write or call him and encourage him to continue to enlighten his readership with news that matters.
Health care,Education,Energy and Agriculture, all vital to our economy and well being,  and all badly under reported.

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

more quotes
Lorrie Goldstein

Sun, January 6, 2008
 
Skip the Kyoto snow job

Canadians will back a realistic green plan — we just haven’t seen it yet

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Let’s examine what the Kyoto treaty on man-made or “anthropogenic” global warming (AGW) is and isn’t.

First, it’s an example of globalization, despite the fact many of its advocates claim to oppose globalization.

But it is not, primarily, an environmental treaty.

If it was, it would require the developing world to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as it does for a relative handful of industrialized nations, including Canada.

The lack of targets for the developing world reveals Kyoto as primarily a mechanism for redistributing wealth from the First World to the Third, unsurprising given its origins in the United Nations.

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

Then there’s Kyoto’s accounting tricks.

Russia is in compliance with Kyoto and has billions of dollars of “hot air” credits to sell to countries like Canada — not because of its environmental policies, but because the base year for Kyoto was deliberately set at 1990, just as the economy of the former Soviet Union was imploding, causing the shutdown of many GHG-producing industries. Similarly, Germany and the European Union benefit from the collapse of the East German economy.

Kyoto envisions the First World paying billions of dollars to the Third in the faint hope the latter will use that money to reduce its rapidly-growing GHG emissions.

Kyoto’s successor will be even more controversial.

To be environmentally credible, it must compel developing nations like China (the world’s largest or second largest GHG emitter in tandem with the U.S., depending on whose calculations you believe) to cut its emissions.

But forcing the Third World to do so will be an example of the First World imposing its priorities on the Third, the very thing critics argue is immoral about globalization.

Besides, does anyone seriously believe totalitarian countries like China, given their low public health, environmental and manufacturing standards, will comply with GHG cuts, even if they agree to them?

That said, we must ignore simplistic environmental rhetoric that portrays nations which meet (or try to meet) their Kyoto targets as “good” while those that don’t as “bad.” In reality, all countries act in their own perceived best interests.

China rejects GHG cuts (as has the U.S. through both the Clinton and Bush administrations) not because it favours global climate catastrophe several decades from now if Al Gore’s apocalyptic rhetoric is correct, which is unlikely.

It does so because it has more pressing problems, such as feeding its 1.3 billion people today.

It’s pointless to condemn China for acting in its own interests, just as it’s silly to portray Canada as an energy glutton, a favourite guilt-inducing tactic of environmentalists.

In fact, Canadians have shown a serious commitment to environmentalism, when they are provided with realistic ways to do so.

But we are also a big, cold, sparsely-populated, northern country, which has logically used our fossil fuel resources to improve our quality of life, exactly what China and the developing world aspire to today.

If we’re telling them, post-Kyoto, they cannot even attempt what we did through industrialization powered by fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas, we had best offer them better reasons than Gore’s doomsday hysteria.

Why do you think the Liberals, for all their pro-Kyoto rhetoric, let Canada’s GHG emissions skyrocket during their 12-year reign, despite promising in their 1993 Red Book to cut them well beyond what later became the Kyoto standard?

They (like the present Conservative government) knew accomplishing this would demand enormous sacrifices Canadians might well reject, if the choices were put to them clearly and honestly.

INCREASE POVERTY

For us to comply with Kyoto now would see huge spikes in the price of everything sensitive to the cost of fossil fuels, meaning gasoline, electricity, heat and water as well as transportation, most manufactured goods and food, all of which are directly or indirectly sensitive to the price of fossil fuels.

This would dramatically lower our standard of living and just as dramatically increase poverty.

Despite what Kyoto propagandists and opportunistic politicians pretend, this isn’t about making an easy choice between “good” and “bad.”

It’s about making intelligent choices from the options we have, all of which have positive and negative consequences.


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

Tories' green plan a fraud: Gore

April 28, 2007

Apr 28, 2007 04:39 PM
Canadian Press

The Conservatives’ new environmental platform is a “complete and total fraud” that is “designed to mislead the Canadian people,” former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said today.

The noted environmentalist was presenting his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” in Toronto at a consumer environmental show, with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and environmentalist David Suzuki in attendance.

Gore praised Suzuki for confronting Environment Minister John Baird on Friday, saying he saw the two exchange words on TV.

When Baird told Suzuki the Conservatives were going further than any other government in Canadian history, Suzuki said it wasn’t enough.
Gore is the fraud along with his sidekick Suzuki

I’ve never been a big cheerleader for the Conservatives but the Liberals are so far off base it is sickening, Gore is making a fortune from carbon trades, Maurice Strong is on the board of directors for the Suzuki foundation. The Ont. Liberals are fools taken in by big business trying to win the vote by trying to look green. The coal plants in Ont. are still spewing health  harming emissions. CO2 is not one of them. We are living  with chicken little just like Iraq. Kill the spin and demand the truth.

Go to original story

'Enronization' of energy

February 17, 2007

This article should wake up everyone regardless of which province or state you live in. The Enronization’ of energy must be stopped. This is not just about hydro power in BC, but all forms of electrical generation.

British Columbians in dark about ‘Enronization’ of energy

By Geoff Olson
Vancouver Courier
Friday, October 20, 2006

Once upon a time the rodeo capitalism of Enron could do no wrong-until 2000, when well-coifed clowns from the Houston-based energy trading company rode a bull market into the stands and scattered the rubes.

Enron may have collapsed in a heap of cooked books, but Squamish area rancher Tom Rankin insists that its business template for energy markets lingers, and that we’re being softened up for the “Enronization” of B.C.’s greatest public asset, our waterways. With the North American electricity industry being restructured to serve the U.S. market, he predicts things will end badly for British Columbian taxpayers, unless we put a stop to private purchase agreements for hydroelectric developments on hundreds of our

click for full story

Enronization

Stretching the truth to the absolute extreme

January 28, 2007

It is -9, with the windchill it feels like -16. Ontario has 413mw of wind capacity. At 1pm the four wind-farms in Ontario are generating at 4.6%  of their rated capacity. Not too impressive.

When the Ontario govt. or the wind industry tell you that a wind farm has the capacity to power x number of homes they are stretching the truth to the absolute extreme. A wind farm has the capacity to power x number of homes only when it is running at maximum output. I have yet to see this happen.

As you can see 4.6% output is a very long way from 100% output.

The govt. plans to back up wind by building natural gas plants.

What is the most price sensitive fuel right now and into the future?

Natural gas.

This McGinty, Duncan policy is not only going to drive up electricity prices it will also cost thousands of manufacturing jobs.

It is time for every voter in Ontario to start asking some hard questions and demanding answers to the McGinty, Duncan energy policy.

This is without a doubt, the most flawed energy policy ever presented to the Ontario consumer.

Who will pay for this disaster.

YOU and your CHILDREN.

Wind Turbine Setbacks-UPDATE Sept.11 2007-

January 25, 2007

From the editor

Manitoba gets the first realistic setback in Canada. The people in Manitoba fought back and instead of a 500 meter setback they now have a more realistic 2000 meter from their property lines. In Ontario the setbacks are from the residence, not the property line, which makes the 450 meter setback in the Municipality of Kincardine and most other places even more ludicrous and unacceptable. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage everyone everywhere to fight for their and their neighbors rights.

You don’t have to put up with this crap.

Rural Municipality of Cartier Manitoba
Some residents voiced their displeasure with the project at the public hearing. Rasmussen said most residents were concerned about the distance turbines would be located from property lines according to the zoning bylaw.

The bylaw passed first reading by a 5-1 council vote in June. Since then, set back guidelines for erecting the turbines changed from 500 metres from neighbouring property lines to 2,000 metres.

Read the rest of the story and get inspired

Riverside County-CALIFORNIA-Restrict the placement of wind turbines within 2 miles of residential development unless the applicant supplies documentation that the machine(s) will not produce low frequency impulsive noise.

Turbines too close to homes-Ms. Lucas, speaking for the Guardians, told the hearing commissioners that the 70 wind turbines proposed for the hills southwest of Makara, each 125 meters tall, were too large to put within two kilometers of any residence. International research showed it was “general protocol” to allow a 2km buffer, even with smaller turbines.

In NZ there were no consented wind energy developments with more than a handful of houses closer than 2km. (Source-Walkato Times)

Australia-To avoid adverse noise impacts on the amenity of the surrounding community, wind farm developments should include sufficient buffers or setbacks to noise sensitive premises. As a guide, the distance between the nearest turbine and a noise sensitive building not associated with the wind farm is to be 1km. These guidelines provide that wind farm developments should be constructed and designed to ensure that noise generated will not exceed 5dB(A) above the background sound level or 35dB(A) using a 10-minute LA eq, whichever is greater, at surrounding noise-sensitive premises. (Source-Guidelines for Wind Farm Development, Planning Bulletin, Western Australia)

Australia-Wind Farm Under Scrutiny. The Myponga/Sellicks Hill wind farm will be scrutinized after claims that developer TrustPower plans to move seven of the turbines within one kilometer of dwellings. (Source-The Times)

(1600 metres in Germany, 1800 metres in Holland).

It was Alves-Pereira’s initial research, published in numerous scientific journals, which prompted the French National Academy of Medicine, earlier this month (March 2006), to call on the French government to stop all wind turbine construction within 1.5 km of people’s homes. You should understand that VAD is well established in the clinical literature; it is not conjectured. It has been amply documented and is readily detected by a variety of diagnostic tests.

What’s wrong with Ontario Canada!

First, the relatively small size of private land parcels in Ontario will present a challenge for developers due to the number of stakeholders that may perceive impacts. Windpark development may become uneconomical if municipal setbacks created to address these “perceived” concerns reduce the usable land area, thus eliminating the economics of scale necessary to develop a project.*
*14c) The Industry does not recommend that a set of standard bylaws be adopted with respect to setbacks or other municipal zoning issues.*

*”The above can be understood to mean, that if “safe setbacks” are mandated, it will make it uneconomical to site wind farms in Southern Ontario”

Setbacks in Ashfield township 400 meters

Setbacks in Municipality of Kincardine 350 meters

“Ontario’s strict sound guidelines ensure that turbines are located far enough away from residences .” What Ontario guidelines? Every municipality is left to figure it out for themselves. Chatham Kent: 300 m, Amherstburg 600 m.

Meanwhile worldwide, in countries that have learned from their mistakes, these distances are increasing due to health, quality of life and safety issues (1600 metres in Germany, 1800 metres in Holland).

You should make people aware, Mr. Hornung that CanWEA is lobbying to remove setbacks altogether in southwestern Ontario due to the small land parcels.

 

Is the Ont. govt. ignoring health issues and the right of property enjoyment for economies of scale. That’s what it sounds like to me. The wind industry is always using the term “perceived” concerns. The concerns that people have are real not “perceived”.

Dalton and Duncan need a reality check. The rights of the people of Ont. are far more important than a bunch of useless windmills.

Germany has more windmills than anyone else. They are building 8 new coal plants because wind isn’t working for them. The Danes don’t want them either, their govt. is forcing them on their people. Why? They have 30.000 people working in the industry.

“We simply cannot continue to lead the world in the field of wind-power technology if we don’t even make room for wind parks in our own country,” Connie Hedegaard, the environment minister for Denmark said“.

Dalton and Dwight or Dumb and Dumber you be the judge

 

Wind farm videos from the UK and Australia

January 22, 2007

If you don’t want your countryside littered with wind turbines I suggest you get active and start writing and calling your respective Representatives.

Don’t call Carol Mitchell MPP for Huron Bruce.
She thinks wind turbines are majestic.

Enjoy the videos

WindTurbinesareComing-UK.wmv

LivingNextDoortoaWindFarm,Australia.wmv

Reliability of wind power

January 22, 2007

Today is one of the coldest days of the year.

Ontario has 413mw of installed wind energy.

At 1pm today the four working wind farms in Ontario are producing a grand total of 14mw.

That is a whooping 3.39% of their rated capacity.

Now, if we needed that 413mw we would be screwed.

413mw of base power gives you 413mw that can be called upon when needed. That is real power

Wind gives you 0 to a possible 413mw but not when you want or need it.

That is a major flaw.

You still have to build and pay for the base power.

Can wind even be considered power?

If it can’t be relied upon when needed what good is it?

I think it’s just bad politics.

What do you think?

Electricity planning must be given back to the engineers

January 19, 2007

The framework of subsidies constructed and empowered in order to encourage development of supplementary electricity generation (it is no more than that) by wind power has become the target for every entrepreneur in the field. Wind power is now so wildly oversubsidised that the overall driver has become excessive private profits, not the real needs of the electricity demand pattern.

 

 

September  4, 2006 by Alan Shaw, Aylsham, Norwich. in The Herald

Thomas McLaughlin (August 31) has summarised perfectly the total loss of plot by both the government and the UK environmental movement generally. The framework of subsidies constructed and empowered in order to encourage development of supplementary electricity generation (it is no more than that) by wind power has become the target for every entrepreneur in the field. Wind power is now so wildly oversubsidised that the overall driver has become excessive private profits, not the real needs of the electricity demand pattern.

In introducing the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s Inquiry into Energy Issues for Scotland two years ago Professor Maxwell Irvine commented: “Energy is an emotive subject and too important to become a party political issue.” It was a perceptive warning.

But it has long since been made a party political issue by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and their fellow travellers. Politicians of every hue have adopted energy as a vote-catching issue without a trace of the complex engineering understanding necessary to formulate sound judgments.
Thomas McLaughlin is absolutely correct in equating the present-day environmental movement with the Cambridge spy ring. To the UK electricity supply industry, it is the present-day equivalent of the Spanish Civil War’s Third Column. British politicians must wake up, shake themselves free and pass such matters back to the objective professional engineers who alone understand the economic and technical issues.