Posts Tagged ‘democracy’

NWO Conference In Montreal

June 8, 2009

June 8th to June 11th 2009 in Montreal

Listen to Inforwars tomorrow for a live report by Montreal 911 Truth

ADAPTING TO A NEW WORLD ORDER

As a consequence of the global economic turmoil, a new world order is emerging. Decision makers from governments, the private sector, international organizations and civil society need more than ever to rethink the strategies and develop innovative as well as future multidisciplinary solutions to face the global challenges of our multi-polar world and improve its state. MTL 911 Truth

Meet the Traitors of the Free World.

Go to the main site of the conference via link below.

Meet the Traitors of the Free World – In Montreal Canada 8th-11th June 2009

http://www.conferencedemontreal.com/accueil.html?L=1

Listen to Inforwars tomorrow for a live report by Montreal 911 Truth

Advertisements

Top 15 blog posts

March 12, 2009

These are the most read posts on this blog over the last 30 days

Ontario becomes a Fascist State

Not in my Backyard Jane Pepino

Mind Maps – A Form of Child Porn?

Loss of local control

Turbine leaseholder complains of noise

Township puts moratorium on turbines

BILL C6

Wind Concerns Ontario

Wind turbine noise affects health

Carbon Tax on Children?

Wind farms are proof positive

DAVID ROCKEFELLER THANKS MEDIA FOR ITS SILENCE

Bill 150: Is it green? Is it democratic?

The New World Order – Explained

Loss of local control

March 5, 2009

Loss of local control concern at green energy meeting

Posted By Don Crosby

Concerns are being raised that the proposed provincial Green Energy Act threatens the authority of local municipal councils.“Municipal powers are our checks and balances. Once they are removed for any reason you set a priority, you have lost your democratic right. This is not what the Green Energy Act should be about,” said Ron Stephens of Kincardine, who attended a public meeting in Markdale on Tuesday night about the province’s proposal.

The meeting was sponsored by the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association and Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Tuesday’s meeting in Markdale was one of several being held by OSEA and other members of the energy alliance in communities across the province to promote the new bill and drum up support for the proposed legislation.

Stephens and others at the meeting expressed their concern that in a bid to streamline regulations around development of renewable energy the province has promised to establish standardized setbacks and shorten environmental assessment times that would favour developers and speed up the approval process while reducing local control.

“We don’t need the Green Energy Act. We can figure things our ourselves,” Stephens said.

The Ontario government introduced its proposed Green Energy Act late last month after a year of lobbying by the Green Energy Alliance — a network of agricultural, labour, industrial and environmental organizations.

The proposed act includes:

• A commitment to improve energy conservation.

• An obligation to purchase power from sustainable energy sources over other sources.

• Fair prices for renewable energy based on the cost of production and guaranteed over the long term.
An obligation for all utilities to connect renewable energy to the electricity grid.

• Financing programs for community-owned energy projects.

• An adjustment of electricity prices to reflect true costs and promote conservation.

• First Nations and Metis community participation.

The bill passed first and second reading late last month and is now before a standing committee for public input.

Grey Highlands Mayor Brian Mullin said it’s a bit too soon to be concerned.

The details of any legislation are in the regulations, which are passed by the government and not the legislature.

His municipality did a lot of work and spent a lot of money to create policies governing renewable energy in Grey Highlands.

“On the other hand there are some issues are bigger that we can’t address and have to be addressed by the province, such as connections to the grid,” said Mullin.

He’s concerned that that regulations won’t be tight enough to protect everyone and that the timetable for approval of the bill is quite short. It is expected to become law this summer.

Mullin said concerned residents can post comments on the provincial Environmental Bill of Rights website and make presentations before the standing committee, which has begun public hearings.

Tuesday’s meeting began with a video comparing the advances that Germany is making in renewable energy with what’s happening in Canada, which was portrayed as lagging far behind many European countries in wind, solar and biogas.

Tony Clark of Chatsworth said the video created an erroneous impression.

“They always compare Canada to Germany and say we should be like Germany. That’s absolutely nonsense, they should be like us. Germany already gets 60 per cent of its power from fossil fuels (coal and gas) and they are implementing 26,000 megawatts more of coal generated electricity. That’s the equivalent of the total amount of power we have in Ontario. Canada only gets about 27 per cent of our power from coal . . . they are light years behind us,” Clark said.

“I’m really upset that the new Green Energy Act will take away the rights of municipalities and the civil rights of residents of Ontario . . . it sets a precedent and once the government does it a precedent will be set and they will do it again and again,” Clark said.

Read more at Sun Times

heads-sand-web1.jpg

Bill 150: Is it green? Is it democratic?

March 1, 2009
From: Keith Stelling <stelling@bmts.com>

FRIENDS OF ARRAN LAKE

A member of

W i n d c o n c e r n s O n t a r i o

___________________________________________

Website: http://windconcernsontario.org Email: stelling@bmts.com

____________________________________________________________

Keith Stelling, BA (Hons), MA (McMaster), MNIMH, Dip. Phyt., MCPP (England)

RR1, Southampton, Ontario, N0H 2L0

Could you spare a moment to send an email to as many MPPs as possible to stop bill 150?

Attached is my critique of Bill 150. It will allow them to destroy the Niagara Escarpment and ruin conservation areas. We will have no way of objecting. We need urgently letters to MPPs from people all across ontario. This is serious denial of civil rights. It has already been pushed through second reading without discussion. Thousands of emails are being sent to MPPs. We need urgent action before further House discussion on Monday.

Please help.

Kind regards,

Keith.

Bill 150: Is it green? Is it democratic?

By Keith Stelling

FIRST THE MAIN POINTS:

  1. This bill takes away your civil rights to protest any “energy” or infrastructure project.

  1. It strips the rights of your municipality to control local planning of where such developments will be sited.

  1. It promotes the installation of hundreds of industrial wind turbines across rural Ontario and requires you to pay in your electricity bill the 5 billion dollars needed to connect them all to the grid. (Many observers are calculating a 30% increase in electricity bills just for this).

  1. Because the wind turbines are inconsistent and intermittent in their electricity production, new gas plants will have to be built and run inefficiently to “shadow” the wind. You will be required to pay for the construction and operation of these too.

  1. In Germany and Denmark, wind turbines have actually increased fossil fuel consumption, have not decreased CO2 emissions and they have the highest electricity rates in Europe. Germans and Danes are very worried about the effect this has on their industry. When electricity costs rise, manufacturers move out. This has already happened in New York State and California. This means even more lost jobs in Ontario’s already hard hit manufacturing sector.

  1. Our conservation authorities will now be powerless to prevent large electricity developments within their boundaries. The effect on sensitive natural habitats will be devastating.

  1. Our provincial pride, the Niagara Escarpment, a world biosphere will be trashed. It is being opened up to gas and oil pipelines, wind turbines and other “renewable energy projects”, “the generation, transmission and distribution of steam or hot water; telegraph and telephone lines and other cabled services; a public transportation system; licensed broadcasting, receiving and transmitting facilities; or any other similar works or systems necessary to the public interest”. Who’s interest?

NOW LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THE DETAILS:

Careful examination required for a bill which nullifies so much existing legislation

When a government proposes a piece of legislation, it is critical that it must be reviewed meticulously in committee to discover all the implications for existing legislation, its conformity to societal values, the probable net effect it will have on communities and the economy. Parliamentarians have also to be on the look out for the claims made by those proposing the legislation and the discrepancies found in the small print.

  • Any act of parliament which nullifies certain functions of already existing legislation should be examined very carefully indeed. This bill tampers with a whole string of them.

With all the fanfare and the well publicized spin that has preceded Bill 150 in an attempt to sell to the public, one would have thought at least this would be a memorable document, eloquently written, outlining ideals and long term objectives, and full of new ideas and practical innovations that would both inspire Ontarians to commit themselves to conservation and environmental custodianship and provide long term direction for cleaning up the planet. Instead, we have been presented with a distorted, scrappy bit of legislation, most of which is left to undisclosed procedural decisions by the Minister at a later date.

  • What is amply clear is that the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure wants to have the final say in anything that affects electricity projects, town planning, conservation and environmental legislation and citizen participation in decision making.

A more cynical observer might even suggest that it is an aggressive move by the Deputy Premier/Minister of Energy/Infrastructure to take over essential aspects of the Environment, Natural Resources, and Municipal Affairs and Housing portfolios.

Danger of this type of piecemeal legislation undoing checks and balances

The danger in this, of course, is that the checks and balances built into our system of governance through these four separate ministries are essential to our democratic values and the practical functioning of government.

Need to verify the purported aim and the foreseeable effects

Any proposed legislation has to be scrutinized to make sure that its purported aim is the same as its foreseeable effect. Self-contradictions can indicate motives that are not in the public interest.

For example, the government seems to have given little thought about the actual ability of wind turbines to allow Ontario to become less reliant upon fossil-fuel generated electricity. The bill states that one of its purposes is “to fund conservation or renewable energy programs aimed at decreasing the consumption of two or more of the following fuels:” and the list includes coal, and natural gas.

The Ministry of Energy is proposing removing all barriers to the rapid and widespread installation of industrial wind turbines across the province.

  • But what has not been discussed is whether the massive installation of commercial wind energy will actually have the claimed effect in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. While the minister never tires of holding up Denmark and Germany as great environmental successes with more wind turbines than anywhere else, there are disturbing reports coming out of both of these countries which are finding that wind turbines don’t lower greenhouse gas emissions.

The facts:

What the public is seldom told is that because of the intermittency and unpredictability of wind, fossil fuel back-up generation is required to maintain grid stability. In effect, this means that electricity consumers pay twice for wind energy. In addition an enormous public subsidy is required to build the new transmission lines from so many widely dispersed wind energy sites.

  • A 2008 study published in the journal Energy Policy by Jim Oswald of Coventry University in the U.K. concluded: “not only is wind power far more expensive and unreliable than previously thought; it cannot avoid using high levels of natural gas, which not only will increase costs but in turn will mean far less of a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than has been claimed.

  • Der Spiegel recently reported that despite all the wind turbines in Germany (more than 20,000)German CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram” and even the Green Party has recognized the problem.

  • The Wall Street Journal explained last September: “Germany‘s gas consumption for power generation more than doubled between 1990 and 2007.

  • In the U.K., the newly installed wind technology is also backed up by gas. Figures released in November by the OECD indicate that “in the past year alone, prices for electricity and natural gas in the U.K. have risen twice as fast as the European Union average”.

  • Tony Lodge of the U.K Centre for Policy Studies notes that Denmark, with the most wind turbines in Europe has not closed a single conventional power plant in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed. The “Danes have found that it is not practical for large base load plants to be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises; base load stations have to keep running so that they can ‘shadow’ wind turbines due to their intermittency. So when the wind is blowing perfectly for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price.”

  • “According to the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The increase in the demand for coal, needed to plug the gap left by underperforming wind farms, meant that Danish carbon emissions rose by 36% in 2006. This has undermined the “green” credentials of Danish wind farms Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green.”

  • Now the British Wind Energy Association has been forced by the Advertising Standards Authority to stop exaggerating by double the amount of carbon dioxide emissions eliminated by using wind turbines.

  • The Ontario Legislature Hansard record from Friday 27 February, 2009: “Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There are a few things that we know, and I said this yesterday but I think it’s worth repeating. With absolute certainly, oil and gas are going to go up in terms of their costs; we know that for sure. We also know that when we buy oil and gas from Alberta, we don’t create any jobs in Ontario whatsoever, but when we invest in our renewables sector and put up those wind turbines, solar farms and biogas operations, that does create jobs here.” He doesn’t seem to get the concept.

A recent report by the Fraser Institute stated: “the Ontario Power Authority failed to conduct economic analyses to determine the most cost-effective mix of future energy supplies.”

Silencing public criticism

The government has publicly stated that citizens who object to their “policy” must be silenced. This bill certainly achieves that objective. The surprisingly untidy organization of the act— large sections being no more than a series of amendments to existing legislation– appears to be the result of a random search by government lawyers to disable every statute that might be used to oppose government policy. The result is an unacceptable dismantling of real environmental protection in this province.

Municipalities and counties asking for moratoriums and health studies on wind turbines

To refuse public input raises serious questions about the true motivations of the government. Health and safety issues for rural residents living close to wind turbines have arisen in every jurisdiction where they have been installed. Wouldn’t it be expected that a minister overseeing such installations should follow up on the request from a number of Ontario municipalities and county councils for a moratorium on the deployment of industrial wind energy pending proper health studies? The Province of Nova Scotia is now insisting on 1.44 km setbacks from non-participating properties, and 1.2 km for project participants. Why are no similar setbacks mentioned in this bill?

How much detail should be left to ministerial procedural decisions?

One major shortcoming of the bill is that too many essential details are vaguely left to ministerial decisions on procedure. When government claims that it will make adequate setbacks from peoples homes and regulations to avoid placing wind turbines near sensitive natural habitats, we should be insisting on seeing what those regulations are before passing this bill. The current procedure of rubber stamping proponent dictated environmental assessments and denying public requests to escalate environmental reviews for all 19 wind turbine projects in Ontario has led to inept and destructive siting in important international migratory bird corridors and stopovers.

Should costs required for private company profits be passed on to taxpayers?

Nicely buried in the bill is the provision that electricity consumers will be expected to pay for the huge additional transmission lines required for renewable energy projects. These additions will cost billons of dollars, not a modest increase on the monthly hydro bill as the minister claims. Undoubtedly, the priority will be to facilitate the transmission of so-called green energy from the widely dispersed rural settings where it is produced to the cities where it is consumed, not to restore the aging infrastructure to homes and businesses across the province.

In this way, the bill ensures that private and business electricity consumers will be subsidizing the already heavily subsidized for-profit wind energy producers (often huge oil and gas concerns). Given the doubtful likelihood that commercial wind energy will even substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions, this can hardly be in the pubic interest. Many critics have asserted that it also creates an uneven playing field for conventional energy producers.

In fact, pushing reliance on an unpredictable, intermittent, non-base load electricity source will inevitably lead to the same enormous consumer electricity cost increases that have already occurred in other countries which have embarked on such a strategy. Industrialists in Germany are very concerned about their decreasing competitiveness brought about by skyrocketing electricity costs.

Danish business is similarly concerned. Jytte Kaad Jensen, chief economist for ELTRA, Denmark’s biggest electricity distributor laments: “In just a few years we’ve gone from some of the cheapest electricity in Europe to some of the most costly.” And the Danish Member of Parliament, Aase Madsen who chairs energy policy admits: “For our industry it has been a terribly expensive disaster”.

In October 2005, Robert M. MacIntosh, past president of the Canadian Bankers Association, wrote in the Financial Post: “It’s time for reality to replace

ideology in energy policy”. Before parliament passes this bill, it must insist on some realistic cost/benefit accounting. We should also be asking how many more jobs will be lost in Ontario because of non-competitive electricity costs.

The McGuinty government claims that 50,000 jobs will be created by the Green Energy Act. “Wind farm” maintenance requires only 7 permanent jobs per 199.5 MW, according to Enbridge. Skilled installers are normally supplied by the turbine manufacturers and involve temporary workers often from outside Canada. We have no turbine manufacturing facilities. These jobs are jealously guarded by Germans, Danes, Americans and Spanish industries. However, even these long-established capital intensive manufacturers are now experiencing serious financial setbacks with stagnating order books and the banking system reluctant to supply credit to wind energy projects. Of course we could build the steel towers in Ontario and even the blades, but they are useless without the turbine equipment. Once again, it would be helpful to see some realistic details of the government’s optimistic estimates.

Contradictory claims in the bill

But the most serious concerns about Bill 150 relate to duplicitous presentation: it alleges that it is promoting environmental values and postures its concern for the greater good, while in fact, undermining many of the environmental safeguards already in place and removing the right of citizens to have input. It should sound an alarm for everyone interested in maintaining civil rights and anyone genuinely interested in protecting the environment.

For environmentalists, there are some very disturbing aspects. In its present form, the bill disables the Conservation Authorities Act, making it impossible for a conservation authority to refuse permission for a renewable energy project except when it “is necessary to do so to control pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches”; (It scarcely conceivable that this would ever be the case for a wind turbine development). In fact, a conservation authority would no longer be able to impose conditions on the project. This in effect, removes one of our most important safeguards for the protection of Ontario’s sensitive wildlife habitats. Recent long term studies by European biologists have warned of the danger of habitat fragmentation and long term degradation when wind turbine developments are placed near sensitive Natural Heritage Systems and migratory bird and bat corridors. The government makes the vague claim that it will not allow wind turbine developments to be sited near sensitive environmental areas. But their credibility is stretched when Environment Minister Gerretsen’s ministry has already denied citizen requests to escalate environmental reviews for all 19 Ontario wind energy projects—with the result that some of them are already jeopardizing sensitive natural habitat functionality.

­Do we want to dismantle the Niagara Escarpment Plan?

Even more shocking for a bill that claims to protect the environment is the devious redefinition of the term “utility” in Appendix 2 of the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Not only does it allow for gas and oil pipelines, wind turbines and other “renewable energy projects commercial or otherwise” along with all their associated infrastructure” to deface and degrade this unique world biosphere; it also opens it up for “the generation, transmission and distribution of steam or hot water; telegraph and telephone lines and other cabled services; a public transportation system; licensed broadcasting, receiving and transmitting facilities; or any other similar works or systems necessary to the public interest”. Would any other country even contemplate so hideous a violation? How could the argument ever be made that such irreversible degradation to one of Ontario’s most outstanding natural assets was “necessary to the public interest”?

Threat to civil rights

But by far the most odious section in the bill is the one which removes the rights of local authorities and individual citizens to appeal decisions of the Ministry of Energy when it allows developments in their communities. All residents of this province should be very worried at this aggressive removal of one of our most precious our civil rights—the entitlement of citizens to determine how our local communities will be planned and to challenge the destruction of our natural heritage assets.

Under the new act, an Ontario resident would be entitled to a hearing by the Tribunal with respect to “a decision of the Director under section 139 in relation to a renewable energy approval only on the grounds that engaging in the renewable energy project in accordance with the renewable energy approval will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, human health or safety or the natural environment. Excluded from this list are all the other reasonable claims that might be made such as depreciation of property values, loss of marketability of a house, loss of enjoyment of peace and quiet, loss of quality of recreational facilities etc. “In the case of a hearing required under section 142.1, the holder of the renewable energy approval is a party to the hearing.” This stipulation would inevitably mean the presence of a high powered lawyer acting for the developer with the intent to intimidate and trivialize any complaint. (The OMB hearing at Kincardine required citizens to spend $75,000 of their own money on “experts” in a fruitless attempt to defend their homes. They were not able to afford the fees of a lawyer comparable to that hired by the proponent and their testimony was for the most part belittled by the corporate lawyer as well as the chairman).

However, just to make any public criticism impossible, the McGuinty government has added an ominous clause:

“Onus of proof

(3) “The person who required the hearing has the onus of proving that engaging in the renewable energy project in accordance with the renewable energy approval will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, human health or safety or the natural environment”.

The irresponsible inclusion of such a principle in an act of parliament would set a totally unacceptable precedent for environmental law in this province. The 1996 Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act (which gives Ontario municipalities the responsibility for protecting natural heritage features and areas within a land use planning context) as amended in 2005 insists on quite the reverse principle. It more wisely stipulates that the proponent must demonstrate that a development will have no negative impact on the ecological functions of the habitat.

“2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.”

But the present bill would make it impossible for an individual citizen or group of citizens to mount any legal defense against a developer who happens to move into their area. Certainly by now the government has been told enough times that badly sited wind turbine developments have a negative impact on human and animal health. But even if a rural resident could afford legal representation, the contest would be lost before it began since it is very difficult (and costly) to prove long term irreversible medical cause and effect as everyone knows from watching years of litigation against the tobacco industry.

Isn’t the place of our government to protect the vulnerability of its citizens?

In its present form, Bill 150 has many other shortcomings. Communities would not even be allowed to learn the proposed location of wind turbines which would be kept “a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information supplied by the proponent to the Facilitator in confidence, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization.” (This line sounds as if it were written by CANWEA). And another civil right is denied in the phrase: “In the event of a conflict between this Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, this Act prevails. The premier and the deputy premier are undoing even the Freedom of Information Act!

Undeniably the “green dressing” of this bill requiring government facilities to “ensure the efficient use of energy” at government facilities is positive. But could this not have been done more efficiently in an inter-office memo rather than the expense of an act of parliament? Again, the emphasis on conservation of energy is a reasonable enough goal, but such programs are already in place, although judging from our ever growing energy greed, they certainly need more emphasis. And just what will be the functions of yet another costly bureaucratic operation, the “Renewable Energy Facilitation Office”. What exactly will be the duties of the Ministry employee, the “Renewable Energy Facilitator” other than providing more government jobs? Will she (or more likely he) be looking after the needs of citizens or just developers?

­Bill 150 is flawed and would work against the public interest

It is sad to see so seriously flawed a piece of legislation even being presented to the House for approval. Clearly, it was put together in a rush, and the rush to get it passed into law is intended to prevent public scrutiny. Given the current invective of the government against criticism of its wind energy policy and the regular use of derogatory and belittling terms such as NIMBY for those brave citizens who have the courage to speak out, this bill looks a lot like a vengeful act aimed especially at silencing opposition.

When one is aware of the vigorous lobbying that has been done by the wind energy industry explicitly to silence public discussion, and the fact that at least one prominent member of the governing party is himself a wind energy CEO, it is difficult to regard Bill 150 as non-partisan and in the public interest. It should be returned to the government and completely rewritten after wide public consultation, public hearings, health studies on the effects of wind turbines, impact studies on the environment by the turbines themselves and their back up fossil-fuel generation. Information needs to be gathered diligently from the experience of other jurisdictions, especially those in Europe where better protective laws have been passed at the demand of affected citizens. A complete professional cost/benefit analysis on the feasibility of the addition of the proposed amounts of wind energy to the Ontario grid is also a prerequisite before a balanced judgment can be made. The present economic climate requires more than ever, well thought out plans based on more than wind energy proponents’ spin.

Please email as many friends and MPPs as possible and express your concern.

The Act Web Page

The Act

MPP Contact Information

Comment on the Act – Environmental Registry

We urge you to write your local MPP, Minister Smitherman and Premier McGuinty as soon as possible.

Call on them to recognize the need for proper environmental assessments for renewable energy projects, to require setbacks to be set by citizens and experts – not the wind industry, and to remove the anti democratic ‘reverse onus’ clause.

This is about more than just wind turbines.

This is about civil rights and the stewardship of rural Ontario.

We urge you to write your local MPP, Minister Smitherman and Premier McGuinty as soon as possible.

Call on them to recognize the need for proper environmental assessments for renewable energy projects, to require setbacks to be set by citizens and experts – not the wind industry, and to remove the anti democratic ‘reverse onus’ clause.

This is about more than just wind turbines.

This is about civil rights and the stewardship of rural Ontario.

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Top Posts Last Week

January 12, 2009

Editor:

If you make it through this top ten from last week and still think the “green movement” is honorable – you need to be deprogrammed.

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Global Warming Video 1958

Sustainable Development: The Root of All Evil

Green Death?

Bonnechere Valley Township Loses Backbon

New World Order – Is This The FUTURE

Carbon Tax on Children?

Mind Maps – A Form of Child Porn?

UK e-mail law ‘attack on rights’

Carbon Offsets for Dummies Free Carbon Offsets-Live Guilt Free!

The Green Scam

The Enbridge Wind Farm Kincardine Ontario

Cash blown in the wind

DAVID ROCKEFELLER THANKS MEDIA FOR ITS Silence

UK e-mail law 'attack on rights'

January 9, 2009

There will be a revolution – the only question is when.

The internet is in trouble. Start saving files to your computer.

They may not be accessible from your bookmarks much longer.

.

UK e-mail law ‘attack on rights’

By Angus Crawford
BBC News

Laptop computer

Service providers will have to store information for 12 months

Rules forcing internet companies to keep details of every e-mail sent in the UK are a waste of money and an attack on civil liberties, critics say.

From March all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will by law have to keep information about every e-mail sent or received in the UK for a year.

The government will pay the ISPs more than £25m to ensure work runs smoothly.

‘Fundamental right’

The Earl of Northesk, a Conservative peer on the House of Lords science and technology committee, said it meant anyone’s movements could be traced 24 hours a day.

“This degree of storage is equivalent to having access to every second, every minute, every hour of your life,” he said.

Implementing the EC directive will enable UK law enforcement to benefit fully from historical communications data
Home Office

“People have to worry about the scale, the virtuality of your life being exposed to round about 500 public authorities.

“Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, privacy is a fundamental right… it is important to protect the principle of privacy because once you’ve lost it it’s very difficult to recover.”

The Home Office said the data was a vital tool for investigation and intelligence gathering.

“It will allow investigators to identify suspects, examine their contacts, establish relationships between conspirators and place them in a specific location at a certain time.

“Implementing the EC directive will enable UK law enforcement to benefit fully from historical communications data in increasingly complex investigations and will enhance our national security.”

Reports have suggested the government has even bigger plans for data retention.

They could involve one central database, gathering details on every text sent, e-mail sent, phone call made and website visited.

Consultation on the plans is due to open later this year.

Full story BBC

Climate experts get key US posts

December 20, 2008

Editor:

Be prepared to have your rights removed and your asses Carbon Taxed to the WALL!

.

Climate experts get key US posts

Prof John Holdren (file image)

Mr Holdren says climate change is already causing widespread harm

US President-elect Barack Obama has nominated two leading global warming specialists for key science posts in his administration.

Harvard physicist John Holdren will be Mr Obama’s scientific adviser while marine biologist Jane Lubchenco will head the US oceanic research body.

Both have advocated greater government action on climate change.

Their appointments have been seen as a sign of Mr Obama’s commitment to tackling environmental issues.

In his weekly address, Mr Obama said that “today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation”.

He said it was “time we once again put science at the top of our agenda” and that he was confident that the US could “lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity”.

‘Respectful’

Mr Holdren was described by Mr Obama as “one of the most passionate and persistent voices of our time about the growing threat of climate change”.

Jane Lubchenco

Ms Lubchenco has criticised the Bush administration’s scientific policies

He has said that climate change is already causing widespread harm and has called for a more robust government response.

Mr Holdren will become director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the co-chair of the Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.

He will share the latter post with Nobel Prize-winning scientist Harold Varmus and Eric Lander, a specialist in human genome research.

Mr Lander’s appointment has been seen as an indication of Mr Obama’s willingness to break from President George Bush’s resistance to genetic research.

Meanwhile, Ms Lubchenco will direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which monitors global weather patterns and ocean currents.

She had criticised the Bush administration earlier this year for not being “respectful” of science.

“I am very much looking forward to a new administration that does respect scientific information and that considers it very seriously in making environmental policies,” she said.

Mr Obama, who takes office on 20 January, has now filled all the posts in the cabinet. However all nominees must still be vetted and approved by the Senate.

Source BBC

Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion on the Hill in Ottawa

December 3, 2008

A real and unnecessary mess indeed.

The opposition never really stood up to Harper – not until their own financial well being was at stake and then all of sudden it became a hue and cry about democracy – or is it hypocrisy?

I’m no fan of Harper but he did win the election.

There is no party operating within Canada that has the interest of Canada as their primary goal.

The left is taking their cues from the UN via the phony global warming scam.

Both the left, through Martin, and the right though Harper, and without voter input continue to negotiate the NAU.

Act local – think global needs to be put in the trash bin. That mantra is designed to enrich the corporations and remove worker rights.

How has the global economy worked out?

Not so good if you look at where we are now.

I am Canadian – I’m not a global.

Act Local – Think Local

There is nothing we can’t grow , design or build in this country. If people wish to trade with us fine and if not that’s fine to.

This country needs to start building our own cars and ever other thing we need.

UN agreements – mostly signed with Liberals in power will restrict the use of our own resources ie: electricity and water.

There is a move to sell off our commons ie: roads, bridges, schools and hospitals.

Commons that were paid for by the tax dollars of hard working Canadians.

Follow the life of Maurice Strong and you will see the evil that thrives in the halls of Canadian Power.

Every Canadian should read the Green Agenda and Cloak of Green. Both can be found via my site or google.

You will never look at your govt. or the green movement with uncritical eyes again.

We are moving with great speed towards fascism or corporatism, which ever you prefer.

A large broom is what is needed on the Hill.
Sweep it clean of traitors and start again.

Fears winter death toll may rise

November 27, 2008

Editor: If you still think MMGW is a real and imminent danger – please give your head a shake. The warming cycle flat-lined in 1998 and we are now heading into a cooling cycle.

The global warming fear-mongers should be rounded up and jailed. The IPCC is a political body – not a scientific one.

If it were a scientific body, the IPCC would have been open to the input of the tens of thousands of scientists that are critiquing their conclusions.

Instead they refuse to accept any criticism or allow any debate on the subject. That refusal should set off alarm bells in the minds of all thinking people.

The IEA (International Energy Agency) via the UN wants to control and restrict the use of energy and through the IWRM (Integrated Water Resources Management) control and restrict the use of water.

They also want to control and restrict food via FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)

They already control the minds of the children via UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)


In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill …All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself
.”

Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.


The enemy is not – global warming or C02 emissions – the real enemy is your govt., global corporations, the UN and their drive for total control over all commons, resources and people via the NWO.

.

Fears winter death toll may rise

Elderly man

The number of winter deaths rose last year

Fears are being raised there could be a jump in the winter death toll.

An Age Concern poll of 2,300 people found many over 60s were worried about being able to heat their homes because of soaring energy prices.

And with one of the coldest winters for some years predicted, the charity said the death toll could rise.

It comes after figures for England and Wales suggested there was a 7% jump in extra deaths last year despite a relatively mild winter.

The Office for National Statistics estimates said from December 2007 to March 2008 there were an extra 25,300 deaths in England and Wales compared to the average for non-winter months.

With this winter set to be colder than last, the numbers are likely to rise
Gordon Lishman, Age Concern

However, the figure was still some way short of the extra deaths seen in the winters of the late 1990s when death tolls nearly hit 50,000 as flu swept around the country.

Nonetheless, the country still has one of the highest rates of winter deaths – ahead of the likes of Finland and Denmark which generally have colder winters.

Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern, said this was a scandal.

He added: “With this winter set to be colder than last, the numbers are likely to rise. Pensioners are clearly more worried about staying warm and well this year.

“Yet, the impact of increased energy bills is causing thousands to risk their health by cutting back on heating.”

Full article BBC

The Fountainhead – A Speech Worth Listening To

October 25, 2008

Do you still believe in freedom?