Three days of wind and costs skyrocket

The OEB every six months issues a “Regulated Price Plan Supply Cost Report” which is a forecast of things to come in respect to the costs of electricity.  The OEB used to use the report to set rates for the ensuing six months but with the Ford government’s freezing rate increases to the inflation rate its no longer the case.  In the latest report on page 17 for the May 1 2019 to April 30, 2020 period they estimate the individual cost by generation source in a chart.

They forecast “wind” is to cost 14.8 cents/kWh (kilowatt hour) which presumably includes either or both; the cost of “curtailed” generation and the 20% inflation bumper included in the contracts with the development companies.

That 14.8 cents/kWh wind forecast cost was blown out of the water over three very recent days. Wind has this bad habit, during spring and fall in Ontario, to blow harder then it does during high demand days in the summer and winter.  During the three days of October 11, 12 and 13th Ontario’s demand was relatively low, averaging about 311,000 MWh per day.  As if to bless the recent disclosure of Robert Hornung, President of CanWEA, industrial wind turbines were indeed generating lots of power at night but were also generating lots of power during the day.  In total, over the three days IESO reported they generated or curtailed 190,350 MWh for an average of about 63,450 MWh per day (20.4% of average Ontario demand).  Over the same three days Ontario’s net exports (exports minus imports) averaged 60,000 MWh (19.3% of daily demand) and totaled 180,000 MWh.  In other words, IWT generation plus curtailed power exceeded our net exports.

Export Costs: It should be noted Ontario’s ratepayers/taxpayers took a beating on exports as the HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) market was $1.04/MWh on the 11th, 0.01cent/MWh on the 12th and -$1.97/MWh on the 13th!  What the foregoing means is ratepayers/taxpayers paid $65,000 to offload surplus power. That amount added to IESO’s first estimate for the Global Adjustment (not included in export sales), for October of $178.78/MWh would represent a generation cost of $32,245,000!  Even if we use the lower September GA of $122.63/MWh the cost is $22,074,000.

Wind Costs: Over those three days wind was generating and curtailing power despite the lack of Ontario demand! It has a bad habit of performing when we least need it!  Its performance comes at a substantial cost and the three days in question demonstrated the 14.8 cents/kWh in the OEB report was well under cost.  We ratepayers pay 12 cents/kWh for curtailed wind so the 77,930 MWh that were not delivered cost $9,351,600 and the 112,420 MWh delivered to the grid at a cost of 13.5 cents/kWh or $15,176,700 brought the total cost for wind to $24,528,300 or $218/MWh for what was accepted into the grid.  At 21.8 cents/kWh that is 47% higher than the OEB forecast in their report.

Presumably we also spilled hydro and steamed off nuclear generation over those three days which would have added to the costs but IESO does not disclose that information.  We could also include a large portion of the costs associated with gas plants built to back-up the indeterminacy and unreliability of IWT which would have driven costs higher.

The cost of our exports plus IWT generation and curtailment represents three days of waste.  We must not only pay up for money lost on exporting our surpluses ($22.1 to $32.2 million) but also the cost of wind ($24.5 million) we didn’t need.  IWT generation and curtailment appears to have created the surplus we exported and over three days Ontarians saw $46.6 million at the low end and as much as $56.7 million at the high end extracted from their pockets—for nothing of value!

Ontario’s ratepayers/taxpayers/businesses collectively want to see value for what they pay in taxes or for energy they consume, so let’s stop the waste.

How about it, CanWEA President Robert Hornung, will you now admit;  wind turbines generate lots of power at night and lots of power during low demand periods?

If not, can we ratepayers and taxpayers call on Minister Rickford to fix the mess by declaring: IWT are not “baseload” power and in future pay them absolutely nothing for occurrence’s like we just experienced!


CanWEA’s President finally speaks some truth

Robert Hornung, President of CanWEA, finally admitted at their annual conference in Calgary on October 9, 2019, something about industrial wind turbines (IWT) most of us have known since they first started to appear throughout Canada!

He didn’t suggest they cause health problems from the audible and inaudible noise they generate, nor did he admit shadow flicker has health affects nor did he state they kill birds and bats, including many of them labelled; “species at risk”!  He also didn’t admit IWT have an effect on property values or that it is intermittent or how it drives up the costs of transmitting power through our electricity grids!

What Hornung said: “He says it’s also why members of CanWEA and the Canadian Solar Industries Association will vote in late November on a motion to merge the two organizations, thus promoting the benefits of wind, which tends to generate most of its power at night, and solar, which works only during the day.”  We should suspect his admission about IWT penchant for generating power at night was related to the upcoming marriage of CanWEA with CanSIA, probably the two most expensive sources of unreliable electricity in Canada.

Pushing the merger agenda may well be a key factor to curry favour from politicians in order to ensure they stay on side to contract more wind and solar generation, presumably to resolve the reputed “climate emergency”.  Interestingly they have touted the marriage with what they see as a future child in the form of “energy storage”.  In the latter case they enabled Electricity analyst Kathleen Spees*, a principal with The Brattle Group to augment the gathering’s message.  She stated: “The shape of the future will be anything but circular—instead it will be triangular, with wind energy, solar energy and energy storage each making up one of the three sides,”

A few weeks before the conference an unnamed individual interviewed Rochelle Pancoast, current Chair of CanWEA’s Board of Directors.  Ms. Pancoast is the City of Medicine Hat’s General Manager, Utilities Business Development & Support.  Interestingly enough Medicine Hat identifies itself as “The Gas City” and proudly proclaims it generates its own electricity from gas plants!  Ms. Pancoast in the interview responding to a question said:  “In the shorter term, partnering will be a dominant theme – whether it be in the form of PPAs [power purchase agreements] between suppliers and sustainably interested corporate entities, or through integration of wind, solar, and storage technologies that collectively work to meet suppliers’ and/or customers’ pursuit of low-cost, reliable, and low-carbon energy.” Most of us on the planet would find that comment coming from someone who is the GM of The Gas City’s utilities oxymoronic but as we have all witnessed on many occasions the reputed “climate emergency” has created some very strange output from a variety of people around the world!

So, what Hornung, Spees and Pancoast were implying is they believe the combination of wind, solar and storage may be able to deliver a reliable electricity supply.  What they don’t say is costs for ratepayers will climb immensely as the combined bill for all three sources will easily exceed any of the current costs of supply from nuclear, hydro and gas.  To top that off they don’t suggest what type of “storage” will actually solve their intermittent and unreliable generation.  The “storage” assertion is an unknown unless they presume batteries will cover the times when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.  It seems as if the three of them are anticipating some shiny things like battery plants** would help politicians buy into adding more wind and solar to our grids!

Co-incidental with the CanWEA conference the World Economic Forum released “The Global Competitiveness Report” and the Toronto Sun carried an article which noted we had again slipped in global rankings.  The Sun article highlighted in particular, Canada “took second place when it came to electricity access, but 69th when it came to the quality of our electricity’s supply.”  The 2015 report had Canada ranked as 13th that year.  Co-incidentally 2015 was the year the Liberal Party was elected to run the country.  If CanWEA and CanSIA are successful in cajoling the politicians into buying into this concept we should expect Canada’s quality ranking will continue its downward decent while electricity prices climb!

With the “quality of our electricity’s supply” falling from 13th place to 69th place in just four years I was reminded of Phillip Morris’s launch of the female cigarette “Virginia Slims” in 1968 with the catch phrase: “You’ve come a long way, baby”.   We sure have but it’s in the wrong direction!

*The Brattle Group have worked closely with the OEB and IESO and were instrumental in the creation of what Ontarians have come to known as the “Time-of-Use” pricing model.                                                                                                                                             **The 100 MW lithium ion Tesla battery’s cost of $90 million for South Australia was just revealed. It will be capable of providing 70 MW of power for 10 minutes and 30 MW of power for 3 hours.  That works out to $880 thousand/MWh if it operates once annually for ten years. Used ten times annually over ten years would reduce it to $8,800/MWh and using it 100 times each year drops it to $880/MWh.

Radio Interview Wednesday Oct. 9, 2019

Tom Harris, Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition does a weekly radio show on Wednesdays at 8 PM and he has asked me to be his guest on the next one; Wednesday October 9, 2019.  You can listen to it by clicking on the “LISTEN LIVE” heading at the top of the face page of Think Radio at that date and time!

Link is:

If you wish to visit the website of the International Climate Science Coalition you will find it here:

If you want to know more about the ICSC I would suggest you have a look at this short video:

PS: If you miss the show the podcast will be available at a later date on Think Radio.

Michigan’s GDP and jobs grow—with a $4.5 billion subsidy (and growing) from Ontario ratepayers

A recent article in the Toronto Sun newspaper by Ben Eisen, a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute’s Ontario Prosperity Initiative, compared Michigan State’s GDP growth and private-sector employment averages with Ontario since 2011.  Mr. Eisen also looked closer at the latter and zeroed in on the manufacturing sector.

What he found was Michigan’s “real GDP growth (per person)” was “1.7% compared to Ontario’s 1.2%.” and their “private-sector employment has averaged 1.9% annual growth, significantly higher than Ontario’s 1.4%.”

In respect to the manufacturing sector he noted; “In 2017, there were 47,000 more manufacturing jobs in Michigan than in 2007, before the recession hit. In Ontario, we shed 170,000 manufacturing jobs during the same period.”  The latter is somewhat shocking and disappointing but during that time, one of the major issues why the manufacturing sector in Ontario shed jobs was due to the cost of electricity skyrocketing, mainly due to the implementation of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA).

With that in mind investigating the “all-incost of electricity to Michigan in May 2011 disclosed their average price to “commercial” clients was 10.61 cents/kWh (kilowatt hour) and in May 2017 it had increased to 11.1 cents/kWh for an increase of 4.6% over 6 years.  Ontario’s rates (electricity only-exclusive of delivery costs) over the same period increased by an average of 4.7 cents/kWh or 64% jumping from an average of 7.35 cents/kWh to 12.05 cents/kWh in those same 6 years!

The question becomes how was Michigan able to maintain rate increases below inflation while Ontario’s increases were well above.  As it turns out Michigan is a large purchaser of Ontario’s surplus generation and we practically gave it away and continue to do so.

Due to the design of the GEA it distorted the pricing mechanism within the electricity system in the province. The bureaucrats at the OEB (Ontario Energy Board) and IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) wound up creating a hybrid pricing system with two parts.  Those parts are the GA (global adjustment) and the HOEP (hourly Ontario electricity price). The latter is a market driven price and the former a means to pay private and publicly contracted generators their contract per/kWh (kilowatt hour) price.  To clarify:  It the contracted amount is 13.5 cents/kWh for wind but the HOEP sells off power for say 2.5 cents/kWh the difference of 11 cents/kWh goes into the GA pot.  The latter is the full responsibility of Ontario’s ratepayers.

Michigan has been an aggressive buyer of our surplus generation at very cheap HOEP prices.  If we examine the six years starting in 2012 through to 2017 we note they purchased 50.908 TWh (terawatt hours) based on IESO reports.  In total Michigan paid approximately $1,250 million using the average HOEP price reported by IESO.  If one calculates the cost per kilowatt hour Michigan paid for those almost; 51 TWh, it comes to 2.465 cents/kWh.

Looking at the other side of the equation those 50.908 TWh using the average GA at the end of each of the six years reported by IESO, created a GA total of over $3.8 billion dollars.   The $3.8 billion was all paid for by Ontario ratepayers.  If we add in the costs for the 2018 sales of 9.07 TWh to Michigan of $760 million we find Ontario ratepayers have subsidized the sale of surplus generation (just to Michigan) by over $4.5 billion in the past seven years!

Premier Ford will hopefully receive a thank you letter from Governor Gretchen Whitmer thanking us for our generosity.

September 30, 2019–just another high cost electricity day in Ontario

Monday September 30, 2019 was a work and school day, meaning the economy was fully functional and electricity in reasonably high demand.  While the foregoing is true in winter and summer days in Ontario, Spring and Fall is when we tend to not be operating our heating source to keep us warm or our air conditioners to keep us cool meaning demand is lower.  Unfortunately for ratepayers, Spring and Fall are great days for wind generation and pretty good for solar generation.

This September 30th was atypical in that total Ontario demand was only about 338,000 MWh according to IESO’s Daily Market Summary and on September 30 in 2018 was only slightly lower at 333,000 MWh.  Those cold winter days or hot summer ones will usually see demand 20/40% above those levels.  What that effectively means is our electricity system must have flexibility with both baseload and on-demand power that can be ramped up or down.  The former has been provided by nuclear generation and “must run” hydro whereas the latter was hydro, a few gas plants and of course those (now closed) coal plants.

Reviewing the sources of the actual generation on September 30, 2019; we were delivered around 256,000 MWh by our nuclear plants and just over 82,000 MWh by our hydro stations. Together they delivered the 338,000 MWh we needed and could have supplied more if required.  The combined cost of those power sources was approximately $22.3 million or 6.6 cents/kWh!

In addition to the nuclear and hydro last Monday, Ontario’s ratepayers also were forced to accept delivery, and payment, of over 20,100 MWh of wind and 7,800 MWh of curtailed wind.  We also had almost 21,400 MWh of gas generated electricity, 1,800 MWh of solar and 1,200 MWh of biomass delivered!  Most of it was surplus generation and was sold off to our neighbours in NY, Michigan and elsewhere for the market price (HOEP) of just over $9/MWh or about one cent per KWh,  The result of that sale plus the payment for curtailed wind increased the total cost of power for the day to about $29.7 million or $88/MWh for Ontario’s ratepayers.

If every day was like September 30, 2019 Ontario ratepayers would be paying $2.7 billion ($29.7 million minus $22.4 million = $7.4 million X 365 days = $2.7 billion) for power others consumed while operators of the FIT (feed in tariff) contracted generators would be stuffing money in their bank accounts.

Things appear to be getting worse as my friend Scott Luft, noted. The second estimate in September issued by IESO for the GA (Global Adjustment) was $163.92/MWh and the first estimate from IESO for October is $178.78/MWh.  What the second estimate for September indicates is that the GA will be $1,260.4 million or $413.1 million higher than it was for the same month in 2018.

We should all wonder when and if, Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines is going to do something, “for the people”, to gain control of the electricity file.  He needs to ensure our rates remain competitive to attract industry to the province and at the same time stop the growth of energy poverty.  So far, he has not demonstrated either of those events will happen.

Ironically, Minister Rickford was recentyly in Shuniah, Ontario cutting the ribbon for the start of the $777 million NextBridge East-West Tie Line Transmission project.  The contract was reportedly approved via an “Order in Council” on January 31, 2019 under Rickford’s watch.  It is very unclear at this time that this line is needed but what is clear is that it will add to the cost of electricity bills.

Using the term “ironically” above is related to the fact that NextBridge is a partnership between; NextEra Energy Canada (a subsidiary of NextEra Inc. of Florida), Enbridge Inc. and OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System). NextEra, in April 2018 unloaded their Ontario wind and solar FIT contracts to the CPP (Canada Pension Plan) for US $582.3 million along with the $689 million in debt attached to those projects.  Enbridge Inc. also sold off a large portion of its wind and solar assets to CPP for $1.75 billion at about the same time as NextEra did.  With the CPP heavily investing in renewable energy it appears the push for wind and solar generation will continue.

Instead of the Ford Government fixing the electricity portfolio they are becoming engaged in ensuring the price to Ontario’s ratepayers will continue its upward spiral.  “For the people” has taken on a new connotation bowing to those who claim a “climate emergency” which presumably now includes public sector pension funds and a continuing drain on ratepayers and taxpayers of the province for renewable energy!

My personal advice—–fix the mess!

Ford government floundering on Electricity portfolio

The IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) just released the August 2019 Monthly Market Report and what it disclosed is that the GA (Global Adjustment) for the month set several records.

The records broken in August 2019 had nothing to do with higher consumption as it was actually down from August 2018. Total Ontario Demand for the month dropped by almost 864,000 MWh (megawatt hours) or 7.3% as average weekly temperatures were lower suggesting air conditioners were operating less.  As Ontario’s ratepayers have come to expect, lower consumption often means higher electricity costs and that expectation was borne out in a major way for August.

The records broken in August include:

  1. Highest GA costs for both Class A and Class B customers reaching $67.19/MWh for Class A and $126.07 for Class B ratepayers.
  2. The total GA for the month also set another record coming in at $1,327.7 million or $1.33 billion when rounded versus $876.4 million in August 2018! When the HOEP (hourly Ontario electricity price) is added in, the cost to “B” ratepayers becomes 14.2 cents/kWh not including, delivery and regulatory charges, which generally add another 30/35% to monthly bills.
  3. Another record broken in August was the monthly transfer to the “Variance Account” as it was up 75.3% from August 2018 and came in at $306.9 million versus $175.1 million in 2018.

Not to worry about the big jump in costs for August 2019 though, as the Ford government has limited “future” rate increases to the inflation rate. When the OEB (Ontario Energy Board) announces a rate increase next month a big chunk of the GA will suddenly disappear.  It will wind up in what IESO refer to as the “Variance Account” which was the Wynne government’s “Fair Hydro Plan” (FHP); simply a deferral of rate increases (25%) to the future.  According to page 129 of the 2019 Ontario Budget the Ford government on November 1, 2019 will move the costs of the FHP deferral to Ontario taxpayers.

Another interesting aspect of August 2019 versus August 2018 was the fact Ontario’s net exports (exports minus imports) in 2018 was small at only around 208,000 MWh versus just over 798,000 MWh in 2019.  The result was, the cost of losses on those “net exports” in 2018 was about $15.5 million versus over $100 million in 2019.   This month we can’t pin the blame on those intermittent industrial wind turbines for the big jump as their additional costs came in at about $9.6 million according to my friend Scott Luft’s tracking of them.

While IESO doesn’t publicize “records” of this type it is important to know when they are broken so that politicians are informed.

If informed, perhaps politicians will examine the reasons to determine what caused those increased costs.  At that juncture perhaps they will examine the reasons and actually do something to slow or reduce the future impacts.  We ratepayers certainly know that wasn’t the case for the McGuinty/Wynne governments but, I think most of us anticipated better results from the Ford led government!

Time for them to show some real action on the energy portfolio!

Time to drink the “climate emergency” Kool Aid?

The Jonestown Massacre encapsulates the “lemming” approach to what environmentalists are continually telling us on a daily basis and what they first described as AGW (anthropogenic global warming), then “global warming” and later “climate change”. They enlisted some quasi scientists who presented biased (selective data) and often non-peer reviewed reports. Those scientists in the main, are dependent on taxpayer funded government grants (local and multinational) to ensure their claims align with political posturing.

As a result, politicians of all stripes have jumped on the bandwagon to declare we are in the midst of a “climate emergency”. The foregoing recently occurred here in Canada as our House of Commons declared a “climate emergency”. The “motion” was brought forward by Canada’s current Environment and Climate Change Minister, Catherine McKenna and was supported by all parties with the exception of the CPC! Additionally, many cities, towns, counties and municipalities in Canada have formally passed motions similar to what passed in the House of Commons declaring a “climate emergency” in their communities. The Huffington Post recently reported 447 have done so across Canada!

According to the media and some recent polls climate change ranks as one of the “top issues” on the minds of voters in the upcoming Federal election. One should expect the Green Party will rank it higher on their list than the economy or job creation but it will also rank high with the NDP and the LPC. One should expect it will rank lower on the CPC and PPC list but will still elicit their attention. In the unlikely event Elizabeth May and the Green Party won the election the plans they would make are sarcastically anticipated in a recent “tongue in cheek” article written by Robert Lyman. He wrote it in response to a tweet where; “Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, warned Canadians that we would face ‘unsafe levels’ of heat and ‘climate catastrophe’ if we do not transition off fossil fuels before the next election. It has charitably been interpreted that ‘by the next election’ she meant four year from now (i.e. 2023).”

It is unfortunate that candidates for all the parties shouldn’t be required to spend forty-four minutes watching a relatively old CBC News documentary. The documentary is titled “Doomsday Called Off (2004)” and references the UNIPCC’s (International Panel on Climate Change) prediction on “disastrous global warming” due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The documentary reviews some of the IPCC’s forecasts; with observations, research and comments from internationally acclaimed climatologists. The IPCC predictions; such as rising ocean levels that will swallow the Maldives (located in the Indian Ocean), are shown to be falsehoods. Predicted ocean level rising also seems to be a problem in the Pacific Ocean as a report from Australia tracking over 100 years of sea levels starting in 1914 at Fort Denison, Sydney noted sea levels were actually lower in 2019 than 1914.

To reinforce the coming of the “Doomsday”, a favourite action of those quasi scientists, environmental groups and politicians, is to select data reinforcing their beliefs. One such recent example was when Environment Canada (EC) omitted a century’s worth of observed weather data in developing computer models on the impacts of climate change. The “climate models” developed by EC were used by Minister McKenna to push for more action which presumably will lead to further increases in the carbon tax in the event the Liberals are re-elected.

Yet another contact of mine led me to a one (1) hour recent documentary titled: “Climate Forcing | Our Future is Cold”. It has received over 221,000 views since its publication on August 28, 2019 and destroys the premise “the science is settled”. It highlights the various model(s) used for the studies has, “three insurmountable and “relatively obvious flaws”! The scientists appearing and vocalizing the documentary go through those flaws in detail. They highlight the omissions of the models used by the reported “97%” of “scientists” who stake their future on continuing grants via their political masters in the UN and elsewhere. I would recommend those who either believe or don’t believe the science is settled to spend an hour watching the documentary.

One article I was alerted to recently was a Kurt Schlichter article headlined in the US media company, Townhall as, “Climate Change Is a Hoax”. The article, in an amusing way, highlights how the various forecasts of an ice age or global warming have been around for decades and the time when the disastrous event is forecast to happen is invariably missed. The following from the article will please the skeptics; “only a climate denier – Climate, I deny thee! – might wonder why we should hand over one, ten, a hundred trillion bucks to people who have never once been right about their predictions. You evidently hate “science” if you expect the “science” people to be correct at least one time in a half century.” Along those lines it was also recently reported that Chancellor Merkel of Germany “pledged a 54 billion euros ($60 billion) program to put its climate target back on track without abandoning its long-standing policy of zero deficit spending.” To put both Schlichter’s article and Germany’s pledge in context; Germany has the second highest residential electricity rates in the EU and as recently reported 340,000 electricity customers in Germany have their power cut off each year for failing to pay bills. Apparently “climate change” actions will create “energy poverty”!

Climate Change is also blamed for major environmental catastrophes including hurricanes, 100 year floods, etc. and this is gaining momentum as insurance claims reputedly rise. It is interesting to look at the flooding aspect as it has hit home in Ontario with two 100 year floods reputedly occurring in just the last three years. If environmentalists and those who profess to be journalists would do some proper research, perhaps, they would be intrigued, nay, enlightened by what real scientists and experts are reporting with the aid of actual weather reports dating back over 150 years. One such recent report from Dr. John Robson labelled; “Urban Flooding – Rainfall hasn’t increased, so what’s changed?” is one such short video with several “experts”. One disclosure notes the UN IPCC reported: “In the United States and Canada during the 20th Century and in the early 21st Century, there is no compelling evidence for climate-driven changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods”! Despite the foregoing available information, the author of an article reporting the “two 100 year floods” published on the TVO website Sept. 20, 2019 suggests “people must better prepare themselves for climate-change-related disasters.” Perhaps the writer should “better prepare” to compose fact-based articles or write fiction!

Related to the flooding but ignored by the media and environmentalists is the more probable cause of much of the flooding around Lake Ontario. Specifically, the flooding in 2017 and 2019 connects to the International Joint Commission’s (IJC) Plan 2014. The “Plan” was signed off on December 5, 2016 by outgoing US President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Plan 2014 was launched January 2017 and the first 100-year flood occurred that year followed by yet another in 2019! Plan 2014 was designed to increase and retain higher water levels in Lake Ontario with one prime objective aimed at increasing wetlands. Sarah Delicate who heads up United Shoreline Ontario has compiled a fact-based video; Understanding PLAN 2014 for Municipalities which lays out the objectives of the “Plan” and the outcomes! The outcome was; major flooding occurred around all of Lake Ontario and cost residents, businesses and municipalities in Ontario and New York State hundreds of millions of dollars. On top of that the “Plan” was basically finalized by a “secret” panel.

Conclusion: The time has come for those quasi-scientists to admit they can’t honestly conclude mankind’s activities and use of fossil fuels has had any significant influence on the “climate”! By doing so, they would hopefully placate environmentalists and politicians who seem intent on destroying the improved state of humanity while severely impacting the economies in numerous countries.

No need to keep feeding us the continuing saga of “climate change” and the reputed “emergency” we face! Mandating mankind to use industrial wind turbines and solar panels to power the globe will ensure the progress we have seen globally to improve the state of impoverished nations will cease.

Stop feeding us the Kool-Aid and destroying mankind’s progress!