The MacDezart

No Right to Self-Defence and Defence of Property

2012-01-31T15:57:00.000-06:00

No Right to Self-Defence and Defence of Property
In Canada if your life is threatened and your property is firebombed at the same time. and even if you have the perpetrators on tappe, you get charged!!!

"Under the law, someone is justified in using force to repel an unprovoked and unlawful attack when the victim has a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm. Courts, in previous cases, have settled that a victim under attack cannot be expected to fully reflect on the risk and weigh the exact measure of how much force might be justified."

Nevertheless, in this fair land you can't touch your guns, not until you are on the point of being injured or killed. Plus, the government wants you to suffer for even having them:

"Prosecutors continue to press two charges of careless storage of a firearm against Mr. Thomson, to which Mr. Thomson pleaded not guilty on Monday."

No matter the law allows you to use force when there is an apprehension of serious harm or death, the law will get you for having the guns at the ready, near by and not locked away where they will be useless when you are attacked.
By pursuing the charge of careless storage, the government is saying, having guns is not nice, no matter what!

Keep Control with Breakfast

2012-01-24T10:16:00.001-06:00

JUST EAT IT

You’ve probably heard the adage that advocates “breakfast is the most important meal of the day.” But what’s the basis for this age-old wisdom? Based on both population research and intervention studies, there are several good reasons to eat something — arguably anything — to start your day. In general, breakfast eaters:

• are less likely to be overweight or obese than those who skip.
• are typically better able to meet their daily nutrient needs than those who don’t eat in the morning.
• perform better on cognitive tests at work and school than their hungrier counterparts.
• tend to have higher grades and better test scores in both childhood and adolescence.

In other words, having some sort of meal in the morning seems to improve your body’s ability to function, and your brain’s ability to think.

QUEST FOR THE BEST BREAKFAST

So, if we know eating breakfast is good for us, what should it be? New research suggests eating protein and carbohydrates together at breakfast can help support long-term weight control, at least compared with a high-protein, low-carb breakfast.

READ THE WHOLE NP ARTICLE

Wind Power Is Dying

2012-01-17T11:49:00.000-06:00

From Macdezart.com and www.wainfleetwag.com

Wind Power Is Dying

While the U.S. is dumping billions of dollars into wind farms and onshore and offshore wind turbines, this energy source is being cast aside as a failure elsewhere in the world.

Some 410 federations and associations from 21 European countries, for example, have united against deployment of wind farms charging it is “degrading the quality of life.”

The European Platform Against Wind farms (EPAW) is demanding “a moratorium suspending all wind farm projects and a “complete assessment of the economic, social, and environmental impacts of wind farms in Europe.” The EPAW said it objects to industrial wind farms which “are spreading in a disorderly manner across Europe” under pressure from “financial and ideological lobby groups,” that are “degrading the quality of life living in their vicinity, affecting the health of many, devaluing people’s property and severely harming wildlife.” A petition for a moratorium has been sent to the European Commission and Parliament, said EPAW chairman J.L Butre.

France, earlier his year ran into opposition to its plan to build 3,000 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind turbines by 2020. That year is the target date the European Union set for providing 20 percent of its energy through renewable sources. An organization called the Sustainable Environment Association, opposes wind power, saying the subsidies will “not create a single job in France.”

In Canada, Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) has launched a province-wide drive against wind power. It said Aug. 8 it wants to ensure that the next government is clear that “there is broad based community support for a moratorium…and stringent environmental protection of natural areas from industrial wind development.” WCO claimed, “The Wind industry is planning a high powered campaign to shut down support” for the WCO’s aims. “Our goal is to store the petition until the next legislative session gets underway in the fall…”

The Netherlands has approximately 2,000 onshore and offshore wind turbines. But even though Holland is synonymous with windmills, the installed capacity of wind turbines in the Netherlands at large has been stagnant for the past three years, according to an article in February in the Energy Collective. It was 2237 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2011. That was said to be about 3.37 percent of total annual electricity production. The principal reason for the stagnant onshore capacity “is the Dutch people’s opposition to the wind turbines.” They are up to 400 feet in height.

The Dutch national wind capacity factor is a dismal 0.186. The German wind capacity factor “is even more dismal at 0.167,” the article said.

Expanding wind power to meet the European Union’s 20 percent renewables target by 2020 meant adding at least another thousand 3 MW, 450-foot wind turbines to the Dutch landscape “at a cost of about $6 billion.” Not surprisingly, the Dutch people found that to be far too costly—“an intrusion into their lives and an unacceptable return on their investment, especially when considering the small quantity of CO2 reduction per invested dollar.”

An added 3,000 MW of offshore turbines also was rejected. The capital cost was figured at $10 to $12 billion. The cost was judged to be too much and the wind energy produced too little. “The energy would have to be sold at very high prices to make the project feasible.” The article added, “The proposed Cape Wind project in Massachusetts is a perfect example of such a project.” Environmental Lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in July wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal blasting the project off Cape Cod as “a rip-off.” Recently, the Netherlands became the first country to abandon the European Union target of producing 20 percent of its domestic power from renewables by 2020.

In Denmark, the Danes became aware that the poor economics of their heavily-subsidized wind energy is a major reason for the nation’s high residential electric rates. Opposition to the gigantic onshore turbines was so great that the state-owned utility finally announced last year that it would abandon plans for any new onshore wind facilities.

The Energy Collective article also reported that a CEPOS (Center for Political Studies) study found that 90 percent of wind energy sector jobs were transferred from other technology industries and that only 10 percent of the wind industry jobs were newly created jobs. As a result, the study said, Danish GDP is $270 million lower than it would have been without wind industry subsidies.

The Australian government, like the U.S., has placed a major emphasis on deploying renewable sources of energy, especially wind energy. As in the U.S., Australia set a target of 20 percent of its energy to come from renewal sources by 2020. The government provides generous subsidies and tax breaks to wind energy developers. But medical studies on farmer families living within 5 miles of wind farms found health problems ranging from sleep deprivation to nausea. Similar health effects have been discovered in other locations, including in the U.S.

Because wind blows only intermittently, Britain has determined that it will have to construct an additional 17 natural gas-powered plants as back-ups to wind to keep the lights on by 2020. These plants will cost 10 billion pounds, according to a posting by the Institute for Energy Research. One analyst was quoted as saying, “Government’s obsession with wind turbines is one of the greatest blunders of our time.”

Onshore wind power today costs about $0.13 per kWh. That’s nowhere near either the objective of the U.S. Department of Energy or the cost of competing power sources. The wind turbines jutting into the sky all across the country exist only because of the massive federal subsidies. Is this considered a failure by Obama officials? No way. Obama’s 2012 budget proposal increases renewables spending by 33 percent.

Wind farms in Texas that will cost $400 million over the next two years produce, incredibly, an average of only one job for every $1.6 million of capital investment. So the state’s comptroller general figured, according to a December 20, 2010 story in the Austin American-Statesman.

As long ago as 1973, then-President Nixon called for “Project Independence” in reaction to the OPEC oil embargo. The project was to achieve energy independence through development of alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal power. So, there’s nothing new about renewable energy.

The Obama 2012 budget asks for $8 billion for “clean” energy, mainly wind power subsidies. As recently as Feb. 7, the secretaries of Energy and Interior announced plans to launch dozens of offshore turbines miles out at sea, while admitting the expense would be unknown. Despite generous subsidies, wind power is expected to provide no more than 8 percent of electric power in the U.S. by 2030.

The American Wind Industry Energy Association, the wind lobby group, said the top five states for wind energy were Texas, Iowa, California, Minnesota, and Washington. It said the second quarter of 2011 saw over 1,033 megawatts of capacity installed. It also maintained that wind is second only to natural gas and U.S. wind power represents more than 20 percent of the world’s wind power.

Over the next half century, say, it’s possible some new technologies will revolutionize energy. But, if so, they surely will come from the private sector — not government.

From the Big Green Lie

2012-01-13T09:18:00.000-06:00

McGuinty/Smitherman’s “Green Energy Scam” is generating lawsuits from all over the World!!!!

By thebiggreenlie

Will 2012 be the year that Ontario taxpayers will not only see their public services cut because of the Green Energy push that has been forging ahead full speed for over 3 years now but in addition to having our bought and paid for necessities of services ripped out from under us by the guys who actually spent our money poorly, we should expect to reach deep to pay the LAWSUITS coming!

Japan lodged a complaint with the World Trade Organization initially and now the European Union is after their “pound of Ontario flesh” due to the piss poor decision making on the wild Green Ride Smitherman and McGuiinty took us on over the past 3 years.

Millions of Ontarians told these guys to stop this, yet away they went. Using CANWEA and their stable of “talking mules” they rammed the Wind Turbine Industry down taxpayer’s throats and now must answer for their actions on the public stage.

Let’s watch them spin their way out of this mess! OR spend their way out!..with OUR money!

EU launches WTO suit on Canadian renewable power

Wed Jan 11, 2012 REUTERS

GENEVA (Reuters) – The European Union has escalated a trade dispute over Canadian provincial rules for solar and wind energy subsidies by asking the World Trade Organization to set up a panel to rule on the case, the WTO said on Wednesday.
The EU’s decision to resort to legal measures against Canada, after the failure of direct talks to settle the dispute, will come as little surprise because Japan has already trodden the same path in an identical case.
The EU and Japan say the Canadian province of Ontario is illegally restricting trade by giving an subsidy to local producers of renewable energy equipment and services.
The scheme guarantees above-market energy prices for renewable power that uses a certain amount of Canadian-made equipment or services, a provision that the complainants say is against the WTO’s rules.
The EU says Ontario’s scheme demands solar projects must have 40 percent of their initial development made up of local products and services, while wind energy needs 25 percent.
The EU has put the request for a dispute panel on the agenda of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body when it meets on Friday January 20, six months after a panel was set up to adjudicate on Japan’s complaint against Canada.
READ THE REST HERE:

WHO Rejects Mercury in the Mouth

2012-01-13T06:39:00.000-06:00

WHO

The World Health Organization (WHO) released its final report on dental amalgam, and has taken a stance against the use of mercury in dentistry, urging “a switch in use of dental materials” away from amalgam
WHO noted that amalgam releases a “significant amount of mercury” into the environment and raises “general health concerns,” while alternatives are readily available
In December 2010, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel recommended the FDA make sure that all consumers and all parents know that amalgam is mainly mercury, and stop amalgam use for children and pregnant women. The FDA is set to make an announcement on dental amalgam by the end of 2011
As a result of enormous public pressure from dentists, health professionals and consumers, we are on the brink of prompting real change in the fight for mercury-free dentistry; you can help us reach the tipping point in order to bring about permanent change

NDP Defection

2012-01-11T07:33:00.001-06:00

No surprise, the Liberals achieve a new high, at the bottom. The Now Dead Party Defector states, voters voted for Layton not the party, and Jack? He dead.

WINDY LEAKS

2012-01-11T07:24:00.000-06:00

Interesting site, nice name, clever pun! Subtitled, What your government won't tell you about Industrial Wind Turbines.

2012-01-08T12:15:00.001-06:00

NorthAmercianPlatformAgainstWindPower is no joke! Opposition to industrial wind turbines is GLOBAL, but not in Ontario! Dalton the Dolt and crew think they are in the forefront of advancing the Green/Greed energy boondoggle (another Ontario first, hurray). In fact, they are on the rump of something that's about to burst.

2012-01-06T08:05:00.001-06:00

Adverse Health Effects of Wind Turbines: The government of Ontario insists that the health effects are not bad and has set up a pro-forma panel to study the effects. Of course, government studies ALWAYS find evidence/conclusions to support the government policy/position. This Video is very sad but powerful evidence of what happens to your health, your livestock, your pets and your property values. The same thing happened on Wolfe Island in Ontario, while the power company's advertising lies about that fact. WATCH this Video.

Now, Australian Liberal Party concedes ill effects of wind turbines and will require 2km setbacks for Turbines: australian-liberal-party-concedes-negative-effects-promise-2k-setbacks

NDP Waffles with Hypocrisy

2012-01-02T11:14:00.002-06:00

Read this carefully, spot the NDP hypocrisy; then, ask yourself, why shouldn't local councils have the power to block projects that a majority of locals electors oppose?! It boggles the mind, the depth and breadth of NDP hypocrisy at every level of government. What a lame excuse!!! Local democracy will stall other Green/Greed initiatives! The Now Dead Party and its people never change.

NDP concerned with blocking future green energy development

By Carolyn Goard

Posted 13 days ago

Newly elected MPP for the Welland riding Cindy Forster stresses giving local communities a greater voice, but the New Democratic Party recently argued against a private member's bill that would give municipalities a say in renewable energy projects.

The Progressive Conservatives' bill would have restored local decision making under the Green Energy Act, but it failed to pass thanks to the Liberals and NDP who said there were many reasons the amendment to the Act would have been problematic.

Forster said recently that when the Green Energy Act—a Liberal law that came into effect in the last term of government—was enacted, the NDP proposed a number of amendments, which the government at the time had rejected. She said the most crucial amendments would have been to support municipalities, focus on communities, and to ensure municipalities can benefit from renewable energy projects.

It was the Conservatives who brought forward the amendment for Bill 10—the Local Municipality Democracy Act 2011—which would give municipalities veto power on any green energy project.

"We didn't support that recommendation for a number of reasons, although we agree there needs to be more accountability and local input into renewable energy projects."

She said the NDP want to ensure communities have a greater say. "We didn't agree in having it go back to municipalities," Forster added, as it would only lead to fights at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), "just like they do on all planning issues."

She said, "It's the issue of money. Municipalities can spend hundreds of thousands fighting at the OMB."

The NDP also felt supporting the bill would block future green energy developments, and companies wanting to come forward with projects won't want to go through all of the work of putting together the project, have it approved by the province, then vetoed by the municipality.

In a recent interview, Forster said a better approach would be to minimize the need for new energy supply by ramping up conservation and energy efficiency. "And where we do need some supply of energy, we should give priority to small community owners," she added, "to benefit local communities and minimize social impact."

Forster said, "It wasn't that we just said 'no' to the PC amendment, we had a lot of debate all through the election campaign." She stated that the NDP looked at the bill, reviewed it with the caucus, and carried out research during the election campaign.

"We didn't feel supporting it would address the needs that need to be addressed."

reprinted without permission

READ THIS BOOK!

2012-01-02T10:52:00.000-06:00

DIRTY BUSINESS : It will make you angry, and it will shock you! Dalton the Dolt slips in his Green Energy Boondoggle when the Opposition is small and weak. But, now he has only a one seat majority, you whine, surely he can't do any more damage?

But the Now Dumb Party and Andrea Hogwash are voting with him!!!

EXTRA! EXTRA! EXTRA! The father of the Green/Greed energy Boondoggle RECANTS!

(coming soon: NDP hypocrisy kills bill to restore democracy to local councils)

WineAlign - Blog - John Szabo’s Vintages Preview for January 7th 2012: Thoughts on 2011 and What’s to Come in 2012; Smart Buys and “European World Discoveries”

2011-12-31T08:32:00.000-06:00

WineAlign - Blog - John Szabo’s Vintages Preview for January 7th 2012: Thoughts on 2011 and What’s to Come in 2012; Smart Buys and “European World Discoveries”

WineAlign - Blog - Margaret Swaine’s Wine Picks: Bubblies

2011-12-31T08:27:00.000-06:00

WineAlign - Blog - Margaret Swaine’s Wine Picks: Bubblies

The Liver Doctor Blog: Cholesterol lowering drugs may increase diabetes risk

2011-12-22T16:06:00.000-06:00

The Liver Doctor Blog: Cholesterol lowering drugs may increase diabetes risk

Once Again: Billions Wasted in a Have-not Province

2011-12-16T07:57:00.001-06:00

Liberal "Billionaires"

"Two major themes stand out in Jim McCarter's report: significant ministerial intervention in the decisions of expert agencies, and costs for consumers over and above those necessary to meet the government's objectives."

The DIFFERENCE

2011-12-15T14:03:00.000-06:00

Between Left and Right? Liberal and Conservative? Not so much a difference as a change of places. Conservatives were once the Authority; Liberals reacted against authoritarianism, while the Right reacted against their dissent. Today, Liberals are the Authority, and it is they who react against dissent from the Right. The new Fascism of today is on the Left.
Are there no exceptions? Plenty, but the most telling and brilliant is the exception of Christopher Hitchens (CH) who refused to be a mere ideologue. He used his head for thinking rather than an ideological repository. He saw where the Left erred and how it did so, and did not spare the Right. His only absurdity? Atheism, for how can you argue the non-existence of something?
There is no argument. R.I.P.
I agree, however, with the person who said that CH's Atheism was as orthodox as his own belief in god. In other words, it was a matter of faith, albeit secular but still faith. Both secular and sacred faith use reason to advance their argument or to attack its opposite. CH, no more than any casuist for any cause, argued rhetorically and historically (the first, ad hominem, the other tu quoque). What's the point? You can't right wrongs already done. Better he should have contented himself with being a relentless critic (a pointer-outer of wrongs and rights) of religion and faith than as one of the faithful. Amen.

Greed Energy Melting under the Sun

2011-12-15T08:19:00.003-06:00

Burned by Solar

"The solar-energy sector in Germany, which pioneered hefty government subsidies to stoke the industry and create jobs, is going dark, leading many to wonder if Ontario should continue to follow the same model."
Even if the Ontario gov't is expected to slash subsidies, does that mean its Greed Energy policy is still good? "Studies in other jurisdictions have shown that for each job created through renewable-energy programs, about two to four jobs are often lost in other sectors of the economy because of higher electricity prices."
Then, there's the $7 billion going to Samsung. No cost-benefit analysis was done, and nothing can prevent Samsung from building its panels offshore. Ontario production is way too costly to make solar cheap energy. Nevertheless, Ontario has established an artificial solar industry; if subsidies are cut, that industry falls. If energy users receive rebates to pay for costly green energy in the place of industry incentives, Ontario is no further ahead and caught in a spending spiral that can only be stopped by killing that artificial industry.

GREED Energy: Solar Bombs...again

2011-12-14T08:38:00.003-06:00

Solar Bust

Solyndra in the US, now Solon in Germany and many more, as German firms go from boom to bust: "Berlin-based Solon , Germany’s first solar energy company to go public, said late on Tuesday it would file for insolvency, becoming Germany’s biggest casualty so far."
The heavily subsidized industry had nowhere to go but down. Asian companies took over solar panel production reducing prices globally. The incentives for alternative energy generation flowed into foreign hands at a huge cost in German jobs and the dismantling of so-called green jobs. Conclusion? Greed energy will feed off-shore workers and companies. But, does it mean that alternative solar powered energy will be cost efficient to the benefit of those buying power? Probably not because solar provides very little output in total. This optimistic observation misses the point: "In the long run price declines will be healthy for an industry that relies on government subsidies and wants to become cost-competitive with fossil fuels."
Cheaper solar panels does not mean cheaper energy. And so-called "clean" energy from solar and wind must have "dirty" energy to keep it going. Boondoggle!

GREED ENERGY 3 Hudak speaks

2011-12-11T10:04:00.002-06:00

Hudak Speaks: Ontario Goes Greek

Post columnist Terence Corcoran, Hudak says, has noted, "the government will pay electricity generators billions of dollars not to produce electricity." To illustrate, Hudak argues that Ontario is in the same fix as those Eurozone countries about to default on their debt (mostly created by borrowing and spending on false dreams of Green Energy, quickly become Greed Energy, a boondoggle to enrich the few by milking the many where every "green" job means a loss of 2 or more real jobs). Greed Energy has meant huge increases in public sector spending and compensation. Public sector jobs have to be controlled (they are the traditional political payoff for voters; the riots in Greece are mainly riots by public sector workers). Spending overall in the Province has to be cut and controlled. But, the problem here is the same as Toronto's Gravy Train: yes, kill the tain but not in my backyard (to mix a metaphor). Ditto for Ontario, where Dalton the Dolt, Prevaricator-in-Chief, continues to propose more spending over budget cuts. He will succeed because the Now Dead Party and Andrea Hogwash are his willing accomplices (see her support in killing the bill that would have returned local democracy to local councils where Greed Energy is concerned).
The provincial Tories propose an annual 2% spending cut. All spending should be scrutinized, they say, with a view to making efficiencies. This will not wash with Andrea and the NDP hogs. They want more, which means more taxes.
"The stakes are high. Ontario is not Greece or Italy - yet. But the same complacency that forced the eurozone into crisis is strikingly evident in today's Ontario government," says Hudak. The Dolt wants to wait until the new budget comes down in March, but by that time Ontario's credit rating will be downgraded for a third time.

Greed Energy 2

2011-12-11T09:56:00.001-06:00

Rex Murphy
Rex wades into the debate.

Rex Murphy: For Dalton McGuinty, it’s too easy, being a greenie

Rex Murphy Dec 10, 2011 – 5:55 AM ET | Last Updated: Dec 9, 2011 4:08 PM ET

NICK BRANCACCIO/Postmedia News

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty makes a speech at the grand opening of the CS Wind manufacturing plant in Windsor, Ont. on Dec. 6.

Earlier this week the National Post published a merciless editorial on Ontario’s energy policies under Premier Dalton McGuinty. The editorial came on the heels of an Auditor-General’s report described by the editorial board as one of the “most scathing indictments of government mismanagement we have ever witnessed.” Anyone who has been following the McGuinty government’s reckless embrace of so-called alternative energy sources and its early fervour for windmills, the multi-billion dollar deal it cut with a South Korean manufacturer of windmills and solar panels, will have no trouble accepting the terms of auditor’s report, or the Post’s equally searing editorial.

It is and was a sad tale, a jumble of highly expensive initiatives, pushed without the proper study and foresight by the Premier himself, bypassing all logic either of commerce or of energy supply. How could this have come to pass, how could a reasonably competent government give itself over to such shoddy business practice, and in the process possibly endanger the great industrial future of Ontario itself? How could the province “ignore guidelines,” skip “cost-benefit analysis,” ignore cheaper alternatives and come up with schemes “largely designed by environmentalists and green-industry lobbyists — ‘stakeholders’ in the government’s euphemistic rhetoric?” It’s on this question that I’d like to dwell.

The Ontario government, and Premier McGuinty in particular, gave themselves over to this madness, becoming overzealous crusaders, because the cause was green. And, sadly, there seems to be no other area of public policy in which fitful enthusiasms, pie-in-the-sky thinking, under-researched proposals and the mere hint of possible benefit get so respectful a response and are shielded — almost as if by magic — from the criticisms and analysis that would greet proposals from any other policy area whatsoever. Call it green and every other consideration goes out the window. Start phantom carbon markets, subsidize a Solyndra, put gardens on roofs … green will rationalize every cost and subdue every sane objection.

For example: During the early day’s of McGuinty’s determination to “make Ontario a world leader in green technology,” it was interesting to watch him and his government studiously ignore the articulate criticisms and protests from some Ontario landowners. Now any other project inspiring such protests would naturally instigate the usual relentless series of environmental studies that have become so common in our time. But — windmills being “green initiatives” — naturally it was the reverse. The landowners who protested were pilloried as being the worst of the NIMBY crowd, just selfish types safeguarding their little nooks against the common green future.

Green is the easiest virtue. All it takes in most cases for politicians is simply to say the word often enough and whatever they propose — for a time — gets a pass. Who would question McGuinty against those “selfish” landowners. Wasn’t Dalton moving towards a greener world? Enough then. No studies required. No review of the windmills (until election time, that is, when suddenly Ontario voters were told, in effect, the science “wasn’t in” on what secondary effects windmills might have). Question the contracts for solar power? Impossible. Solar power is “clean.”

We don’t have to call in experts to determine how much they will drive up the energy bills of ordinary Ontarians. Rhetorically, Ontario’s citizens were being asked: “Hey — do you want to save the planet, or save a few bucks on your damn household electricity bill?” With the right cause, you can extort the citizenry to put up with bad policy.

And that’s where this green obsession leads. It promotes a policy on its moral virtues, not on its real-life impact. It replaces the mundane requirements of affordability and reliability of power generation with the vague promise that we’re all participating in some planet-saving enterprise if our toasters run on our neighbour’s highly-subsidized solar panels.

It also has one other feature that politicians are totally unable to resist: Being totally green, they are able, for once, to posture as forward thinking, daring, innovative — even risk-taking — leaders, champions of the Earth, saviours of “the children.” They get to play Superman and Boy Scout at the same time. Well, as Ontario’s record shows, you can play the part for a while, but eventually economics or the electorate will have their say, and you must step down from being the green Messiah and try being just the Premier, instead.

Alas, not before billions are wasted, the future obscured, and countless vanity projects litter the landscape. There are lessons here for that huge green garden party going on in Durban right now, but that’s a longer column.

National Post

Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV’s The National, and is host of CBC Radio’s Cross Country Checkup.

Posted in: Canada, Full Comment Tags: Dalton McGuinty, Green Energy, Ontario Auditor's Report, Ontario Green Energy Plan, Rex Murphy

Greed is Green: the Dream Becomes a Nightmare

2011-12-08T07:33:00.001-06:00

National Post · Dec. 8, 2011 | Last Updated: Dec. 8, 2011 5:11 AM ET
We have long argued that the Ontario government's headlong rush to convert Canada's industrial heartland to "green" energy would turn out to be nothing but a colossal waste of money. Since most alternative energies remain commercially impractical (that's why they're still alternative and not mainstream), the blind rush by Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government to substitute wind, solar and bio energy for coal and oil was never likely to produce much new energy, just higher power rates for residential and industrial consumers. But even we underestimated the extent to which the Ontario Liberals' 2009 Green Energy Act had failed in just over two-year's time.
In one of the most scathing indictments of government mismanagement we have ever witnessed, Ontario Auditor-General Jim McCarter reported Monday that Mr. McGuinty's green dream has rapidly become an $8-billion nightmare for Ontario taxpayers and electricity users. Almost no new net power will be generated by all the green-energy projects hastily funded since the bill was passed, but the average residential consumer will see more than $400 a year added to his power bill for a decade to pay for all the bad contracts with and subsidies to eco-friendly power suppliers.
Over the past year, the McGuinty Liberals have been forced to conduct a series of embarrassing climbdowns from their grand promises about the benefits that would flow from the switch from carbon fuels to renewables.
Last spring, the provincial government announced it would no longer push for the building of wind-power turbines in the Great Lakes or any other freshwater sites around the province. The technology, it suddenly claimed, was unproven. The decision was purely scientific, Energy Minister Brad Duguid insisted. It had nothing whatever to do with the turbines' unpopularity with landowners who would also be voters in October's provincial election. "There isn't a lot of science on freshwater offshore wind," Mr. Duguid admitted. "We need some time to review the science and we don't have it today."
Perhaps the Liberals should have realized that before they earmarked over $1-billion for the initiative.
But as Auditor-General McCarter pointed out several times in his annual report, this leapbefore-you-look approach was typical of the McGuinty government's haste to approve and fund environmental projects. For instance, hundreds of millions have been paid - and hundreds of millions more will have to be paid in the coming decade - to landowners who agreed to put up small-scale solar-energy farms on their property. Only after scores of these projects had been approved and paid for, though, did the Ontario government realize there was no economical way to connect all them to the provincial power grid, so little of this expensive electricity is reaching homes or factories.
Guidelines for ensuring public grants were going to worthy projects were ignored. Financial regulations were violated. Few cost-benefit analyses were performed nor business plans produced. Lower-cost alternatives were ignored, despite warnings from civil servants, and the whole scheme was largely designed by environmentalists and green-industry lobbyists - "stakeholders" in the government's euphemistic rhetoric. "Normal due diligence for an expenditure of this magnitude had not been followed," Mr. McCarter concluded.
If the same reckless approach were taken with shareholders' money in a private company, securities regulators would almost surely recommend charges be laid against those behind such a scheme.
Heads should roll in this case, too. The trouble is, as Mr. McCarter also identified, much of the final decision-making was tightly controlled by Premier McGuinty himself. And we suspect Mr. McGuinty is unlikely to fire himself from Cabinet. Though re-elected with only a minority government in October's vote, the Liberals are only two votes shy of a majority, and neither opposition Progressive Conservatives or provincial NDP are likely to topple Mr. McGuinty so soon after an election. The people of Ontario are likely stuck with him for the time being - as they are certainly stuck with the high costs of his green dreams.
While it's too late for Ontario to avoid these costly mistakes, other provinces can still learn from them. Other provincial governments may be tempted to consider similar green-energy programs, either for environmental reasons or in the hopes of establishing a productive, lucrative and morally pure industry by the magic of government fiat and wishful thinking. Let Mr. McCarter's findings be a warning for them: Don't copy the McGuinty example. It is good for neither the environment nor for consumers.

Greed Energy

2011-11-14T07:29:00.011-06:00

This is the proper name for Green Energy! The massive subsidies for Solar and Wind energy generation create huge debt with little or no ROI. The debt is so huge that it numbers in the trillions of dollars. Part of the debt crisis in Europe can be traced to this form of subsidization. The Green energy Boondoggle is also linked to the Global Warming scam. Both are responsible for Greed Energy Both are generating, not power from an alternative source, but the power of Debt and economic meltdown. And not the Auditor General of the province states that green money is lost money. This is so scary that the captioned FP article can state with impunity:

"[the] new report from the Auditor-General of Ontario fries much bigger fish. It demonstrates that no Canadian government has gone as far out of line as Ontario’s Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty in misappropriating the levers of authority to achieve green ends. It’s also doubtful any government has ever received such a scathing review from is own auditor."

The reasoning for the government's dictatorial mandate on Greed is hard to fathom, but it can be understood in terms of bureaucratic inertia: it is hard to go back when going forward was done blindly. It reminds one of the breakout of the First World War: in august 1914, matters had proceeded so far that no one felt the mobilization could be stopped; so, they contented themselves with the self-exculpating fiction, "it will be over by Christmas." Well, almost Christmas, four years later.

MERCURY in your BODY

2011-11-10T09:01:00.003-06:00

YOU WILL BE SURPRISED:

And you should be if you have metal in your mouth.

When Eagles Fall Out

2011-11-07T06:41:00.006-06:00

The captioned blog post hits the nail on the head by looking at European history in the last 100 years in its headlong rush into one disaster after another. Compare the League of Nations (a European meeting club) and the EU:

"As Benito Mussolini said in 1936: 'The League is very well when sparrows shout, but no good at all when eagles fall out.'”

Berlusconi, take note! Forget the Greeks and their gift bearing, take cover...

Chiefs' Disease

2011-10-16T09:37:00.003-05:00

In disputing the possibility that the call for abolition of the Indian Act by national chief, Shawn Atleo, can ever be achieved because the urge to conduct business as usual will be too strong to overcome, Kevin Libbin reminds us that Shawn Atleo also protested the private member's bill to force disclosure of chiefs' salaries (a strange reaction for a reform-minded leader).

Maybe Mr. Atleo, too, suffers from the traditional aboriginal leaders' disease: can't see the indians for the chiefs.