Archive for the ‘Suzuki’ Category

More growers turn to coal – Use of Coal is Expanding in the Province of Ontario

November 12, 2008

Editor: Can it get any more ridiculous?

Ontario is hell bent to close our coal plants and replace them with intermittent wind farms and solar parks – backed up by expensive gas plants.

If you asked someone to design the worst electrical system they could, it would likely be the one described above. The very things you would want to avoid if possible. Expensive and unreliable.

How do you promote an expensive, unreliable electrical system?

Are you stupid? Own a business?

Ontario is the place for you!

Shouldn’t the growers be using renewables like wind and solar? Not if you want your tomatoes.(wind and solar create carbon credits. We need reliable cost effective energy)

Dump the green lobbyists today – Call in the engineers and lets get a system that is cost effective and reliable. I have said this too many times but I will say it once more.

I had a long talk with the senior policy adviser for the Ministry of Energy and he agreed that the best system for Ontario was to put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build a nuke. 10 billion. Cost effective and as clean as we will get.

The green lobbyists plan-60+ billion (that’s a lot of your taxes wasted) for a system that is more expensive, unreliable and in the end not likely any cleaner than the one the policy adviser would build.

“This is about politics” I was told by the adviser. Well folks – heat your home or greenhouse with politics.

Read the story and if you are not outraged by this govt. – you probably work for them or one of the lobbyists.

.

More growers turn to coal

TORONTO STAR PHOTO ILLUSTRATION

TORONTO STAR PHOTO ILLUSTRATION

Tyler Hamilton

Energy Reporter

“Coal is expanding in the province, despite a policy to phase out coal,” says Roger Samson, executive director of REAP-Canada, an independent group that encourages sustainable farming practices. “The Ontario government has no plan on how to mitigate this.”

How much coal, potentially, are we talking about? The energy demands of a typical greenhouse are enormous. Shalin Khosla, a greenhouse specialist with the agriculture ministry, says anywhere between 35 per cent to 50 per cent of the costs of operating a modern vegetable greenhouse goes toward energy consumption. The figure is closer to 20 per cent for flower growers.

It’s estimated that greenhouses in Ontario cover 2,823 acres, and that the average greenhouse requires 9,500 gigajoules of energy per acre every year. This works out to 26.8 million gigajoules annually.

Convert that energy into electricity potential and it works out to 7.44 terawatt-hours a year – more than three times the 2004 electricity output of the Lakeview coal-fired generating station in Mississauga (which has since been closed down and demolished).

That’s equivalent to more than one million tonnes of coal being burned annually.

It’s a mathematical exercise that raises a serious public policy question: What’s preventing the entire greenhouse industry from moving to coal, and in doing so, undermining the spirit of the McGuinty government’s coal phase-out strategy?

Not much, it appears. Unlike power plants and other major industrial facilities, greenhouses can burn whatever fuel they want without much scrutiny.

Keith Stewart, an energy expert with WWF-Canada and author of a book on Ontario’s electricity system, calls the situation “perverse” and a reflection of inconsistent government policy.

“Outdated energy policy is giving us coal-fired tomatoes,” he says.

full story at the Toronto Star

Tyler Hamilton can’t seem to write a story without including Keith Stewart in it. Tyler, go find some engineers. Stewart has a Phd in political science and environment. He is not a energy expert nor is the WWF.

I haven’t read his book but I have read enough “green” policy papers to pretty much know what it says. Green politics does not make an energy expert.

Stewart is a lobbyist for the green movement. Gerald Butts the ex-principal Secretary for McGuinty is now with the WWF. Robert Hornung of CanWEA and the Pembina Institute along with his friend David Suzuki are all involved in pressuring the govt. to adopt their policies and in the process are doing great harm to this Province and Canada.

None of these people are employed by the govt. nor are they elected and I don’t believe any of them are engineers.

They are promoters of a massive fraud that goes by the name of “Man Made Global Warming”.

So butt the fuck out of our electrical system.

If you don’t like Canada – go join your mentor Maurice Strong in China. They use lots of coal there. Go bother the Chinese

If any of you mentioned above would like to enter into an open debate, or have a comment-I’m available.

Germany Plans Boom in Coal-Fired Power Plants

Premier, Dalton McGuinty powers a press conference with wind energy



Advertisements

Let’s clear the air on carbon taxes-We aren’t 100 per cent sure that human activity is causing global warming

July 4, 2008
Editor:
So, now we aren’t sure. Brilliant, but not surprising.
Here’s another statement by Mr. Suzuki.

Suzuki Says “Sorry, intelligence was never my strong suit.”

Suzuki, like James Hansen, are shills for the UN “New World Order Agenda”.

Both Suzuki and Hansen know “man made global warming” is a scam, and so is the carbon tax.

Both Suzuki and Hansen want people who don’t agree with them thrown in jail. Maybe Suzuki and Hansen are the ones that need a little cooler time.

Read Agenda 21 to understand what is going on.

I admit: we aren’t 100 per cent sure that human activity is causing
global warming. So let’s all go home in our SUVs and join an “axe the
tax” campaign. Come to think of it, we aren’t sure that our houses will
be robbed, flooded, or burned to the ground, so let’s cancel our home
insurance while we’re at it.

After all, the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists will
only admit to being 90 per cent certain that our carbon emissions are
causing global warming on such a scale that we face global catastrophe
if we fail to change our ways. If nine out of 10 doctors said your
child needed an immediate operation, would you wait until all 10
agreed?

James Hansen, a leading climate expert who raised the alarm about
global warming to the U.S. Congress 20 years ago, says he’s 99 percent
sure, but that’s still not 100 percent, so why should we pay more by
way of a carbon tax to address a problem that may not exist?

True, a report prepared by M.K. Jaccard and Associates for the David
Suzuki Foundation titled Pricing Carbon: Saving Green argued
persuasively that a carbon tax is an effective tool for bringing
emissions down, and governments, scientists, and economists around the
world agree, but what if they’re wrong?

Never mind that countries such as Sweden, which implemented a carbon
tax in 1991, have proven such measures are effective and that they
actually produce economic benefits; why should we change if we don’t
have to? Rising gas prices due to global market forces are already
hitting us hard enough; why should we add to the misery?

Consider this: If the industry shills and their followers are right
and global warming is not the threat we think it is, and we act anyway,
the oil will still be there for future use and we’ll also have cleaner
air and greater innovation in green technologies – along with stronger
economies.

If the majority of the world’s climate scientists are right and we fail
to act, we face ecological, social, and economic catastrophe on a scale
beyond anything we’ve experienced in modern times.

Consider also that carbon taxes such as B.C.’s and the one the
federal Liberals have proposed are actually tax shifts. The money
collected from individuals, businesses, and industry will be returned
in the form of cuts to personal and business taxes.

The 2.4 cents a litre increase in gas prices that is one small part of
the B.C. tax is minuscule compared to market increases, and the tax may
help us move away from continued reliance on increasingly scarce and
costly fossil fuels.

Whether it’s called a tax shift, a revenue-neutral tax, or a new
tax, it will get people worked up. No one likes taxes, but we like
roads and schools and hospitals and police services, so we pay them. We
also pay about $90 a tonne to put garbage into landfills, so why are we
so concerned about having to pay to put garbage into the air?

Politicians have two powerful instruments to influence behaviour:
regulation and taxation. In the mindless mantra of anti-taxation
groups, taxes are bad and we should always cut and never increase them.
The ludicrous aspect is that these groups are silent about the enormous
taxpayer subsidies to fossil-fuel and related industries that make
windfall profits while resisting even a small tax hike.

Together with measures such as a cap-and-trade program, a carbon tax
can use money from industries that are not energy-efficient to create
economic benefits and incentives for those that that are wiser in their
energy use. The income generated by a carbon tax can be used to cut
income taxes, build more public transit, upgrade trains, develop
renewable-energy sources, and retrofit homes and buildings with
energy-efficient technology.

For 20 years, scientists have warned of the need for urgent action to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Leading economists have shown that the
cost to bring emissions down will be about one per cent of GDP
annually, while the costs incurred if we don’t reduce emissions could
be economically catastrophic.

When politicians, business people, and citizens show leadership by
proposing or implementing solutions to the very real problems facing
the planet (yes, more than 90 per cent certain is as real as it gets in
science), they deserve our support, not mockery and politically
motivated misinformation. Axe the tax, my ass!

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Mussolini had his blackshirts

Mussolini

Hitler had his brownshirts.

hitler

Now we have to deal with the UN greenshirts,
and they are every bit as dangerous.

maurice strong
Maurice Srong

al gore

Al Gore

david suzuki

David Suzuki

Just a few of the front men

Read Agenda 21

Ontario Wind Farms – Dalton McGuinty

April 26, 2008

Edtior:
Mr. McGuinty, you are allowing the UN to set our energy policy. Your wind farms have forced people from their homes, and threaten many more.

If you are stupid enough to think that wind will power this province – you are too stupid to be leader of this province. Health – Education – Agriculture and the manufacturing sector are all suffering. But then that’s the plan under Agenda 21.

Mr. McGuinty you are a Disgrace and a Traitor

Watch as Dalton powers his press conference with wind energy

.

Another One Bites the Dust

March 28, 2008

Editor
They burn, they explode, they make noise, they make little electricity when you need it, and they drive people from their homes. No wonder the Green Fanatics like them so much.

Stupid people pushing stupid ideas.

Smoke pours from the top and bottom of one of the wind turbines at the Ewington Wind Farm near the Heron Lake exit north of Interstate 90 Wednesday morning. The Brewster and Okabena Fire Departments responded to the scene, but upon the advice of Suzlon Wind Energy officials, the fire was allowed to burn itself out. (Brian Korthals/Daily Globe)

Minutes count when saving Earth

March 27, 2008

Editor
Show the world you still have a working brain. On March the 29th

FLICK ON

Lorrie Goldstein

Thu, March 27, 2008
 
Minutes count when saving Earth
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

checkCookie();

This Saturday, March 29, starting at 8 p.m., 24 “global cities,” including Toronto, will be participating in “Earth Hour.” The aim is to encourage people to turn their lights off for an hour to promote awareness of man-made global warming.HERE IS MY ITINERARY:

8:00 p.m. — Turn off lights before leaving house — naked — mindful of George Monbiot’s warning in Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, that the campaign against global warming is a campaign in favour of austerity. In this light, I have decided to give up clothes, the manufacture of which is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

8:01 p.m. — Hug tree.

8:02 p.m. — Lecture next-door neighbour about his stupid idea of holding community barbecue to celebrate Earth Hour, noting burning charcoal, propane and natural gas to heat barbecues emits GHG. Angrily ask neighbour why he is cooking chicken and hamburger, given that meat production is a major source of GHG. Demand neighbour serve chicken and hamburger to guests raw, noting food poisoning is a small price to pay for preventing cataclysmic climate change and making the world safe for Al Gore.

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

8:05 p.m. — Run screaming from climate denier neighbour chasing me with spatula yelling “you !@$%$#$ idiot, get off my property!!!!”

8:10 p.m. — Hastily enter car, using keys strategically hidden for this purpose in hair. Drive to Hwy. 401 entrance ramp, refusing to turn on headlights in tribute to Earth Hour, ignoring frantic warnings by climate denier fellow motorists that my headlights are off.

8:15 p.m. — Travelling at 100 clicks per hour in centre lane of Hwy. 401, with no headlights, turn engine off in order to coast to stop, making important symbolic statement about car travel being a major contributor to global warming.

8:20 p.m. — Drive quickly away from 35-vehicle crash immediately behind me, caused by climate denier motorists foolishly driving on highway at speed limit with headlights on, attempting to avoid my stopped vehicle in centre lane with headlights off.

8:25 p.m. — Contact David Suzuki Foundation by cell phone, challenging them “to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing into jail” so-called environmentalists who self-righteously lecture everyone else about reducing their carbon footprint, while having fathered five children in two marriages, perhaps because they missed the Environment 101 class in university about Zero Population Growth.

8:30 p.m. — Contact Nanticoke coal-fired electricity-generating station by cell phone, pretending to be Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, demanding to know why GHG and pollution-spewing plant hasn’t been shut down as I promised voters in 2003. Challenged by switchboard operator to provide proof I really am Dalton McGuinty, I promise not to raise her taxes.

8:35 p.m. — Attempt to evade capture by climate denier Ontario Provincial Police officers chasing me down highway in cruisers, after climate denier Nanticoke switchboard operator contacts them complaining about some lunatic pretending to be the premier of Ontario.

8:40 p.m. — Place call to family from holding cell at OPP headquarters, asking them to come down and bail me out on numerous charges. Also ask them to bring clothes.

8:50 p.m. — Lecture climate denier OPP sergeant while leaving station that he should replace incandescent light bulbs in holding cell with fluorescent lighting to save planet.

9:00 p.m. — Return home. Take prescribed sedative. Go to bed.

Toronto Sun

Show the world you still have a working brain. On March the 29th

FLICK ON

Carbon tax flim-flam

February 26, 2008

Carbon tax flim-flam

Terence Corcoran, Financial Post  Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Mark Jaccard’s one-man crusade to hook Canada up to a monster new global warming policy nightmare popped up again yesterday. This time he emerged in Ottawa with David Suzuki at a news conference that offered Canadians an economic miracle: Big new carbon taxes, lower income taxes, reduced carbon emissions, more government revenue, and a growing economy.

The all-in-one package is in a report by Prof. Jaccard, of Simon Fraser University, for the David Suzuki Foundation. Titled Pricing Carbon: Saving Green, the report ran through some economic modelling exercises to see what might happen if Canada were to impose a tax on all carbon emissions of between $75 and $200 a tonne by 2020. Before any government gets to assessing the report — which doesn’t mention that a $200-a-tonne tax would raise the price of gasoline by about 50% to $1.60 a litre; nor does it do much to highlight the $45-billion in annual lost growth by 2020 — we suggest a tracking device be attached to Mr. Jaccard to monitor his role in the rise of carbon tax on the Canadian agenda.

When B.C. Finance Minister Carole Taylor’s budget last week announced a version of a carbon tax, Mr. Jaccard and his private research company, M.K. Jaccard and Associates, were the only authorities named. The B.C. plan, moreover, contained all the propaganda tricks Mr. Jaccard raised in the Suzuki version. The tax would raise billions, but voters should not worry because it would be “revenue neutral” and would be “recycled” back in tax cuts or direct payments. As a marketing ploy, the B.C. government said it would immediately send out $440-million in Carbon Tax Credit cheques to citizens, before the carbon tax was even imposed.

In his Suzuki report, Mr. Jaccard begins with a pithy epigraph: “The atmosphere can no longer be considered a carbon dump.” Turns out Mr. Jaccard is quoting himself and his coauthors, including one Jeffrey Simpson, from their book Hot Air. While short and emphatic, the quote is also pure rhetoric unhindered by fact. The atmosphere will continue to used as a dump so long as humans are allowed to exist.

Then the Suzuki report says that “several recent studies” show that a price on carbon is the best way to cut carbon emissions. Of two studies cited, one is from Mr. Jaccard. Reference is later made to recent carbon-tax research by the National Round Table on the Environment — research Mr. Jaccard had a hand in.

The progress of the carbon tax idea to yesterday, including the joint conference with Mr. Suzuki and the B.C. budget carbon tax gimmick, shows Mr. Jaccard has a way with policy makers, politicians and activists. So far he’s made no headway with the Harper Tories or Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, whose budget today was clearly the focal point behind the timing of these events.

The Jaccard carbon tax studies are gigantic exercises in economic modelling. Using models Mr. Jaccard controls, the study asks what would happen to the economy 12 years from now under different levels of carbon taxation and methods of government disposal of the cash raised. If the tax were $100 a tonne, governments would raise $62.5-billion; at $200, the tax take is $100-billion a year — three times what the government collected last year in GST. That would be bad for the economy, depending on how the government spent it. It would reduce carbon-based energy consumption, hurting growth. But if the government took that money and “recycled” it back into the economy in beneficial ways, the bad impact of the tax would be neutralized.

Well, not quite. Even Mr. Jaccard’s black box couldn’t come up with that much of a miracle. Different things happen, depending on the policy. If the government used 14% of the carbon tax money to subsidize green energy and carbon capture technology, gave 40% to industry and used the remaining 46% to reduce payroll or income or other taxes, then there might be offsetting benefits. But not enough to offset the losses from the tax, which would still leave the economy in the red by upwards of $45-billion a year, a figure that increases annually with the loss of compounding growth.

The Suzuki report spends a lot of time ventilating the idea that there might be a “double dividend” in a carbon tax. Bring in a tax, the government recycles it back to taxpayers, and then everybody collects an environmental dividend. In the end, though, the report concedes (most clearly in a footnote) that there is a growing consensus in economics that the prospect of such a double dividend is “weak.”

The Suzuki-Jaccard study is premised on the theories of Arthur C. Pigou, a 20th-century economist who believed you could use taxes to change behaviour. Mr. Jaccard calls his tax the “Pigovian carbon price.” The trouble with Pigovianism is that it requires revival of the ancient and discredited economic art of central planning, using taxes as substitute for prices. But a tax is not a market price. It’s a bureaucratic planning device–as Mr. Jaccard’s elaborate economic modellings prove. And it’s no way to run a market economy.

 The National Post

Suzuki's foundation should lose status

February 15, 2008

Editor:
Once you understand what Suzuki is up to, you might ask for his Order of Canada back. Ask David why China and India are exempt from Kyoto. Those two countries have close to half the worlds population. Ask David about CIDA, set up by his mentor Maurice Strong. From there Canadian tax dollars were used, under the guise of environment, to influence politics in Brazil and other countries. David is just doing what he has always done. This time he is doing it Canada. David if you want to be in politics then it’s time you threw your hat in the ring.

When the fraud of global warming is finally exposed, will you claim ignorance or will you move to China with Maurice Strong.

Before you donate to any environmental fund read the Cloak of Green by Elaine DeWar. You will never look at the environmental movement the same again.

Thanks again to Lorrie for doing his best to get the story out. You won’t get the story from the CBC.

Suzuki’s foundation should lose status

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

Is there anyone who doesn’t think, based on his own words, that David Suzuki wants voters to throw out Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Conservative Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach in their upcoming elections?

If so, why hasn’t the Canada Revenue Agency revoked the charitable status of the David Suzuki Foundation?

CRA’s website says charities are “prohibited” from participating in “partisan political activity,” meaning anything that “involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to (my emphasis) any political party or candidate for public office.”

Recently, in a speech at McGill University, Suzuki basically suggested Harper and Stelmach should be jailed for indifference to climate change, although a Suzuki spokesman later said he wasn’t speaking literally.

According to the National Post, Suzuki said: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail, because what they’re doing is a criminal act.” Sounds literal to me.

Sarah Babbage of the McGill Daily reported: “(Suzuki) gave a scathing critique of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, chastising them for neglecting the environment in favour of economic growth and development of the tar sands, (adding) It is an intergenerational crime that … they keep dithering as they are.’ ”

Vincii Tsui of the McGill Tribune reported on Suzuki, “singling out (Harper and Stelmach) for prioritizing the economy over the environment.”

The Post reported Suzuki said: “We can no longer tolerate what’s going on in Ottawa and Edmonton.”

I’m guessing he wasn’t talking about the Liberals.

Last year, the Calgary Sun reported on Suzuki attacking Harper before an audience of elementary school children as he accepted $835 they collected for his foundation.

“The only thing he cares about is getting re-elected with a majority government,” Suzuki said. “I don’t believe there is a green bone in Harper’s body — he has never, ever indicated he cares about the environment …” That’s non-partisan?

In June, in Toronto, Suzuki claimed the Harper Conservative government was harassing him by repeatedly auditing his foundation. According to the Globe and Mail, he said: “I am being hounded by the current government because I have a foundation that has my name and so they’re trying to take away my charitable (status),” adding he now had to preface remarks with: “Everything I say is my personal opinion, has nothing to do with my foundation.”

Really? Quick — name another member of the Suzuki Foundation aside from Suzuki.

Visit the foundation’s website, davidsuzuki.org. You’ll see a picture of Suzuki at the top beside “David Suzuki Foundation.” Both are to the left and slightly above the “DONATE Now!” icon.

Click on the first featured article, (Feb. 6): “Who will pay for our failure to act on global warming?” where Suzuki criticizes Harper and Stelmach.

How can anyone distinguish the views of David Suzuki from the David Suzuki Foundation?

In June, a government spokesman denied Suzuki’s allegations, saying politicians don’t launch CRA audits. Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Post the CRA had dramatically increased audits on environmental groups in recent years but: “This is something I would not blame the Conservative government for …”

Charities can spend 10% of their budgets for non-partisan political activities to influence public opinion, policy and relevant laws, including organizing conferences, lectures, rallies, letter-writing campaigns etc.

But what Suzuki’s doing? C’mon. This isn’t about free speech — he can say whatever he likes.

But if partisan political activity is “prohibited,” why does his foundation have charitable status, meaning it doesn’t have to pay income taxes on its $6 million in annual revenues (2006) and can issue tax receipts to donors? If you agree, call the CRA’s charity directorate at 1-800-267-2384 and complain.

Source

Definitions for the global warming fanatics who can't tolerate disagreement with their views

February 11, 2008

Lorrie Goldstein

Sun, February 10, 2008
Finding the right words

Definitions for the global warming fanatics who can’t tolerate disagreement with their views

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Despite repeated appeals to reason, decency and common sense, global warming fanatics continue to disparagingly refer to people who disagree with them as “global warming deniers” or as part of the “global warming denial industry.”

Their absurd, disgusting and juvenile attempts to suggest anyone who doesn’t bow down before their half-baked ideas, self-righteous prattle and mindless propaganda is comparable to a Holocaust denier, have gone on unchallenged for too long.

Enough is enough. It’s time those of us who do not believe New York is going to be wiped out by a 20-foot rise in sea levels caused by global warming either next Tuesday, or 50 years, or 1,000 years from now — they’ll get back to us on that — struck back with some mocking terminology of our own.

Ready? Here we go.

Feel free to borrow as many as you like and come up with your own. Fun for the whole family!

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

STEPHANE DION DISEASE

Definition: A medical condition in which you can’t decide whether to pull Canadian soldiers out of Afghanistan by February 2009, but are confident you can predict the climate of the planet 100 years from now, based on computer models.

JACK LAYTON SYNDROME

Definition: Obsessive concern about the negative impacts of global warming on Taliban prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

GILLES DUCEPPE DISORDER

Definition: The belief that global warming will stop when Quebec separates from Canada.

ELIZABETH MAY FEVER

Definition: A chronic condition in which the subject spends large amounts of time and energy explaining that the last time she said something really dumb and incendiary about global warming, or anything else, it wasn’t actually as dumb and incendiary as it sounded. Either that, or it was all Stephen Harper’s fault. Take your pick.

AL GOREITIS

Definition: The mental state of anyone who piously lectures everyone else about reducing the size of their carbon footprint on the Earth, while personally living a luxurious, high-consumption, high-flying lifestyle that they condemn for anyone but themselves. Also known as “celebrityitis” and “Hollywooditis”.

DAVID SUZUKIITIS

Definition: The belief that everyone is entitled to their own opinion about global warming … as long as it agrees with yours and that if not, they should be jailed.

WEATHER CHANNEL PSYCHOSIS

Definition: Anyone who simultaneously holds the beliefs that last year’s mild winter and this year’s harsh one are both evidence of global warming. Possible symptoms include having your head explode because of all the BS you’ve jammed into your brain. More generally speaking, a term used to describe any self-proclaimed expert on global warming who doesn’t understand the difference between “weather” and “climate.”

KYOTO ACCORD SYNDROME

Definition: Delusional belief that the same political geniuses who keep promising to “fix” medical wait times can “fix” the climate.

SCHOOL BOARD SICKNESS

Definition: The belief that global warming can be solved by opening up a black-focused school in Toronto, which, come to think of it, seems to be the Toronto District School Board’s “solution” for solving pretty much every crisis it faces these days.

GREEN RIGHTS FEVER

Definition: A relatively new disease among Canadian human rights commissions, causing them to believe any journalist who writes about global warming is likely to expose minority groups to hatred or contempt. They just haven’t figured out how … Yet.

MEDIA MADNESS DISEASE

Definition: An affliction common among journalists who pontificate ad nauseam about what Canada’s policy on global warming should be, without ever having read a book on climate change or even knowing the difference between the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Possible cures include reading a Grade 8 science textbook.


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

• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca

Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems

February 10, 2008

Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems

By Tom Deweese 

In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a “wrenching transformation” must take place to lead America away from the “horrors of the Industrial Revolution.” The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.
Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy – often referred to as top-down control. Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life.

Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. As these policies are implemented, locally-elected officials are actually losing power and decision-making ability in their own communities. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected “sustainability councils” armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.

In fact, a recent study reported that elected city councils and commissioners have lost approximately 10% of their legislative power during the past 10 years, while, through the consensus process, the power of private groups called Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has increased by as much as 300%. It is a wrenching transformation, indeed.

The Three Es

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.

The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction.

The Sustainable Development logo used in most literature on the subject contains three connecting circles labeled Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity (known commonly as the 3 Es).

Social Equity

Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for something called “social justice.” It should be noted that the first person to coin the phrase “social justice” was Karl Marx. Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature. The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the “community.” How does this differ from Communism?

This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the “migration” of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs. Say the Sustainablists, “Justice and efficiency go hand in hand.” “Borders,” they say, “are unjust.”

Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, “every worker/person will be a direct capital owner.” Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the “community.”

Economic Prosperity

Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships.

In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses – particularly large corporations – now find a great advantage in dealing directly with government, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with. This government/big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vice versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny. One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism.

Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of government in Public/Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels.

As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute American manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away American natural resources. After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new “green” industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the “partners.” This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.

Ecological Integrity

“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.”

from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit.

This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda. It says humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources. Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man reacts with nature – which, of course, is literally everything. And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control. This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature. In fact, the report from the 1976 UN Habitat I conference said: “Land …cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”

Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights – as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: “Human activity…combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers…are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks.”

Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said: “A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”

The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.

Source CFP 

David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail.

February 7, 2008

By any means necessary

David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail. How did environmentalism become this totalitarian?

Terry O’neill, National Post Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008

(See hardcopy for Photo Description)Brent Foster, National Post(See hardcopy for Photo Description)

No one knows how many forests have been felled to print all the stories that have been published about David Suzuki, Canada’s much-honoured but continuously controversial environmental crusader. The dead trees probably number in the many thousands, a (supposedly) global-warming-causing harvest so plenteous as to lead one to assume that preacher Suzuki might have begun moderating his apocalyptic sermonizing, lest he trigger yet another round of clear-cutting.But no. Instead, Suzuki has lately pumped up his rhetoric with even more frantic language, apparently as part of an all-out, last-ditch attempt to persuade Canadians that the world is fast approaching an environmental meltdown. It’s not clear whether he’s changing any minds with his new bellicosity, but he has at least been doing his bit to keep the country’s loggers busy.

So what exactly has Suzuki, who is on the university-lecture circuit these days, been saying? For starters, he told a University of Toronto audience last month that the next federal election ought to be about the environment. No problem there. However, as reported by a student newspaper, he then opined that government leaders who aren’t acting quickly enough to save the environment “should go to jail for what they’re not doing right now … What our government is not doing is a criminal act.”

His allegation of law-breaking was apparently no mere slip of the tongue. Speaking a few weeks later at McGill University, Suzuki again equated governments’ alleged inaction on the environment with a criminal act; in fact, he is reported to have said students ought to find a legal way to throw politicians in jail for ignoring climate-change science.

The geneticist-turned-broadcaster had particularly harsh words for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Premier Ed Stelmach of Alberta because of their alleged favouring of economic growth over environmental protection. “It is an intergenerational crime” — there’s that concept again — “that, in the face of the work of scientists over the last 20 years, they keep dithering as they are,” Suzuki declared.

Suzuki’s alarmism is nothing new, and more-prudent scientists have long ago answered his hyperbole and exposed his faulty logic. And it’s also long been abundantly clear from his speeches and books that his position is driven by both a quasi-religious zeal and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of humanity’s relationship with the natural world.

On this latter matter, he told the McGill crowd there is actually no difference between human beings and the environment in which they live. “We are the environment. There is no distinction,” he declared, thereby equating, for example, a newborn baby with a mud puddle. How heartening.

But this is old ground. What we haven’t seen from him until now is such an incendiary call to arms. Taking to the streets to protest climatechange inaction is one thing. Calling for the jailing of politicians is quite another — especially considering the fact that, the last time I checked anyway, there is nothing in the Criminal Code of Canada to prevent the Prime Minister from attempting to enhance both the country’s economy and its environment. It’s called balance.

We shouldn’t really be surprised at Suzuki’s latest tactic. Eco-pirate Paul Watson, formerly of the Sea Shepherd Society, has long argued that he answers not to the law of man, but to the law of nature. And we’re not talking here about his need to take bathroom breaks while chasing down whaling ships on the high seas. Suzuki now seems to be adopting a similar philosophy: that human-written law should be subordinate to that of Mother Nature (except, of course, when it comes to incarceration; human-constructed jails are so much more reliable than caves or thickets). And, of course, it’s only Watson and Suzuki’s special hot-line to Gaia that allows them to interpret nature’s law; the rest of us unenlightened ones need not apply.We should also not be surprised at the intolerance that permeates Suzuki’s “lock ’em up” rhetoric. After all, despite the multicultural mantra that we “celebrate our differences,” there’s a disturbingly illiberal tendency these days (as shown in the recent “human-rights” prosecutions of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, for example) to censor those with whom one doesn’t agree. It’s only a very small step to try to throw such disagreeable persons into prison, too. Perhaps U.S. author Jonah Goldberg ought to be thinking of adding a chapter to his high-profile new book, Liberal Fascism, to explore this subject further.

Actually, Czech President Vaclav Klaus (who, coincidentally, is up for reelection tomorrow) has already done a lot of thinking in this area and has concluded that environmental zealotry poses as great a threat to human freedom as did communism. Klaus, whose book Our Planet is Blue not Green will soon be translated into English, believes that climate-change alarmists persuade governments to launch costly and unnecessary programs that have the ultimate effect of impoverishing people, thereby making them less free.

“When we look at it in a proper historical perspective, the issue is — once again — freedom and its enemies,” Klaus wrote last year. “Those of us who feel very strongly about it can never accept the irrationality with which the current world has embraced climate change (or global warming) as a real danger to the future of mankind, as well as the irrationality of [anti-globalwarming] measures because they will fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity.”

Suzuki is actually supporting a more direct attack on freedom than that which worries Klaus. Suzuki’s plan would lead to a loss of freedom, not though punitive economic measures, but through the incarceration of politicians with whom he disagrees. I have a better idea: Let the court of public opinion decide this at the polls. And if Suzuki doesn’t like the democratic outcome, he can always show his displeasure by giving us back his Order of Canada medal.

oneills@telus.net – Terry O’Neill is a Vancouver editor and writer.

Source National Post