With COP 27 Around the Corner the Push to get us to Net-Zero is Mind Blowing

The UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference) or COP-27 is just around the corner and will be held in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh in November (6th to 18th).  Tens of thousands of bureaucrats from around the world will be in attendance including (we must assume) hundreds from Canada including many from the Trudeau led governing party along with many from charitable institutions labelled (personally) as eco-warriors!  The very first COP (conference of the parties) was held in 1995 so for 27 years the concept that “mankind is responsible for climate change” has endured and we should all suspect; this upcoming conference will be no different! The race to achieve “net-zero” is progressing at a snail’s pace without the negative consequences continually professed by them! The developing countries in attendance will be seeking trillions of dollars from the developed nations to help them transition to that elusive “net-zero” target!

In support of the foregoing, Canadian eco-warriors living off charitable donations and government funding from coast to coast to coast are undaunted and continue to push their agenda believing mankind’s use of fossil fuels should cease. They do this seemingly, without the ability to weigh scientific facts against their angst and as each COP gets close, they ramp up their “end of the world is coming”, rants! Needless to say, COP 27 has raised their ire once again so let’s look at just two of the most recent apocalyptic rants from the climate cult.

The “Green New Bill”

A recent article appearing in “Branding.news” suggests if the federal government invests $20 in a “green and just recovery” it will mean: “$307.85 would be contributed to Canada’s GDP within 10 years”!  It also includes a video of less than two minutes outlining how and why that would happen.  “The banknote was designed with a coalition of Canadian grassroots groups including the Green Budget Coalition, the Strathmere Group, CAN-Rac, Corporate Knights, and the Task Force for a Resilient Recovery, led by the David Suzuki Foundation“.  Needless to say, the aforementioned “coalition” members have been around for years, and most have been included in previous findings pushing the “climate change” agenda. They have coalesced on numerous occasions using grants from cult supporting charitable foundations to push their views on government policy makers with great success!  The article includes a link to an Instragram AR filter to allow you to see how they calculate that $20 investment will translate to become the $307.85 in 10 years. A quick review suggests the overall concept has nothing to do with common sense or economics and is strictly cultist forecasts by the eco-warriors pushing us to eliminate the use of fossil fuels for the past 27 years.

Act Now to Expand and Decarbonize our Electricity System

Wow, it’s apparent Armageddon must be just around the corner or perhaps by 2035 or 2050 unless we electrify everything and end all use of fossil fuels if one is in agreement with a recent letter sent to the Prime Minister and Provincial and Territorial Premiers signed by 25 organizations.  The letter was reportedly signed by the David Suzuki Foundation, Pembina Institute, Blue Green Canada, CanREA and many others including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Electricity Canada, Mining Association of Canada, Global Automakers of Canada, etc. etc.  It seems very strange; capitalist associations have joined forces with eco-warriors pushing the net-zero agenda!  The letter makes many recommendations warning about our commitment to achieve “net-zero” emissions in only 28 years and how we must “prioritize the transformation of our electricity system”. The letter states the foregoing should be accomplished by procuring “non-emitting electricity generation” and the “build out of new transmission infrastructure”.  It also suggests “Increased use of electricity throughout the economy can also ultimately lower total energy costs for consumers – provided we act now to plan and implement the changes required in our electricity system.“  The letter doesn’t say how the foregoing will happen or once mention anything about estimated costs or who will pay for their recommendations.  This letter suggests we are living in strange times as pushback is lacking from those who will be most affected along with the dubious claim as to how it will lower energy costs for consumers. This was the message doled out by the UK, Germany and the EU and they are now living through what they have wrought on their citizens driving millions into energy poverty with skyrocketing electricity prices.  At the same time those increased energy costs have pushed up their inflation rates further damaging their economies.

Realism Versus Cultism

Some recent events strongly suggest the “net-zero” push may be similar to the Attenborough false claim back in 2019 when he suggested walrus’s falling off cliffs were caused by “climate change”.  Shortly after he made it, his claim was easily debunked by individuals with skill sets he lacked!  Could the same thing happen to the eco-warriors and those who have joined the fray for the net-zero push?  A few recent events suggest it is probable.

1.Germany is Dismantling a Wind Farm to Make Way For a Coal Plant was one such article posted October 26, 2022, which strongly suggests Germany is facing a bad “energy short” winter. For that reason, they are firing up three of their previously shuttered 300 MW capacity coal fired electricity plants.  As it happened the lignite coal mine is where a wind farm was located presumably back in the days when Germany was hell bent on managing their economy using wind and solar as their principal source of electricity generation.  My, how times have changed!

2.Yet another article on October 26, 2022, in the Financial Post referenced a recent poll conducted by Leger in respect to support for Europe in the form of our enormous supply of oil and gas and 72% of respondents supported the development and export of our oil and gas to reduce their dependence on Russia.  The article went on to state; “The Trudeau government seems to have taken its marching orders from the 13 per cent of Canadians who are either “strongly” or “somewhat” opposed to exporting more of our oil and natural gas.” Does Trudeau really believe him, and his minions are doing a good job at managing our economy with polling numbers showing support for just one of his policies at 13%?  Time for him to wake up and smell the roses!

3. Another recent shot at the impact of renewable energy with a US focus was articulated by Jeff Currie, economist, and Global Head of Commodities Research at Goldman Sachs in an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box.  Currie stated in respect to the USA: At the end of last year, overall fossil fuels represented 81% of energy consumption. 10 years ago, they were at 82%. $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuels from 82% to 81% of the overall energy consumption.”

Summary:

Canada contributes 1.6% of global emissions so no matter what we do, China, India and other developing countries will replace them quickly and well before we achieve our targeted reduction.

What the foregoing should communicate to our leaders in Canada and in the developed world is to expect a pushback from the developing countries at COP 27 and the “net-zero” push!  They will either need to promise trillions of dollars of support to the developing world countries or back away from the concept fossil fuels are the engine controlling climate change.

 

Why are Parasitic Universities Considered Charities?

Researching on the “web” occasionally presents information that can be shocking and one such event recently occurred.  Stumbling across a 267 page report titled “2021 Canadian Provincial Energy Efficiency Scorecard” and having a quick look one notes two logos on page 2 with one called “Efficiency Canada” and the other Carleton University.

As it turns out a visit to Efficiency Canada discloses it is housed at Carleton University’s Sustainable Energy Research Centre.  The site has a donate button stating it’s a unit of the Carleton Center for Sustainable Energy Research so a donation will presumably generate a tax receipt.* The site also has a “supporters” page and it is several of the usual “charitable foundations” handing out those tax-free dollars in full support of the UNIPCC and the “climate change” agenda and included; the Ivey Foundation, Toronto Atmospheric Fund, the McConnell Foundation, etc. etc.

The report on page 12 ranks the provinces and BC comes out on top followed by Quebec in second spot.  Newfoundland and Labrador rank last!  It is amusing that amongst the paraphernalia; the report lauds electric vehicles (72 mentions) while it castigates provinces for lack of electric “capacity savings” as a percentage of peak demand.  They fail to connect demand with charging EV which will raise demand for reliable electricity power! As one should suspect; emissions, climate change, net-zero and renewable energy are the theme throughout the report in order to reputedly show what the provinces must do to save the world!

On another note it is worth seeing how Carleton University brag  about being selected as one of the National Capital Region’s Top Employers (2022) and they list the reasons why but fail to mention compensation which may highlight why their employees think they are great.  Carleton University have 44.4% (1087) of their 2,445 employees on the Ontario Sunshine List earning over $100K annually.  If one does the math based on the CRA filing (April 30, 2021 year-end) the average compensation of ALL 2,445 employees is substantial. The CRA report notes: total compensation for all employees was $422,419,000.00 and $97,492,113.00 for part-time employees so deduct the latter and divide the amount by those 2,445 employees and you see the average for each employee is $132,935.00.

According to a recently released salary review: “Fully employed Canadians received an average yearly salary of around $54,630, Canada income statistics for 2020 reveal.” That statistic suggests the “average” Carleton University employee earns 2.4 times what the average Canadian worker does.

Carleton reported for 2020-21 they had “207 full time faculty members” in the Liberal Arts Faculaty and a “1:8 faculty to student ratio” which makes one wonder exactly what those other 2,238 employees are engaged in to justify their compensation?

Statistics Canada stated in 2018/19 there were 46,440 full-time academic teaching staff at Canadian public universities so we should hope the ratio of non-teaching staff is not the same as Carleton University.  If that was the case, the 11.8:1 ratio of teaching staff to other employees, would mean Canada’s 96 public universities would have almost 548,000 non-faculty staff costing taxpayers/students $72 billion dollars annually in compensation. 

On the latter note the CMEC (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada) claim: “Statistics Canada has reported that postsecondary institution revenue in 2018–19 increased to $41.5 billion (in 2001 constant dollars)”.  They also note 45.8% of postsecondary funding comes from the government (one assumes they actually mean taxpayers and the term, “government”, means Federal, Provincial and Municipal).  They go on to state 29.4% are student fees and the balance (24.8%) comes from donations, bequests, nongovernmental grants and sales of products and services.

The latter brings us back to the opening paragraph suggesting those donations, grants and bequests play a huge role in influencing our places of learning.  Much of this latter funding is specific to the objective of influencing the outcome of both the teaching process as well as favourable research supporting belief in “climate change, global warming, net-zero, global emissions” etc. etc. 

Even if the donations, grants, etc. are only 10% of the $41.5 billion they will have a profound effect on the educators seeking to keep those donations and grants coming even if they are non-believers in mankind’s ability to control the temperature.

Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate the education system with a particular focus on the postsecondary institutions and the reason for their “charitable” status!

*A search of the CRA file for Carleton University and a review of their Financial Statement does not detail where funds “specifically” came from with the exception of those “tax-receipted” (1.5% of Gross Revenue) but their financial statement disclosed they received $69.5 million for “Research Grants and Contracts” for their April 30, 2021 year and that represented just over 10% of their gross revenue.

Eco-Warriors are Strangling Energy Advances at a Cost to Consumers

Back in 1989 Greenpeace Canada lost it’s charitable status with the CRA and they kept trying to get it back without success but suddenly in late 2020 for some reason the CRA suddenly allowed the newly formed Greenpeace Canada Education Fund to have charitable status. The latter claim they are “focused on research, investigations and education” and reputedly have engaged “more than 17,000 students from K-12 and 328 presentations across Canada”.  One should presume those engagements have been to scare our children and grandchildren that the world will end unless we deal with “climate change”. 

As a coincidence an unrelated “Google” search led to finding an entity called the Green Energy Coalition which has been an “intervenor” with the Ontario Energy Board and on occasions; jointly with Environmental Defence.  Members of the GEC are none other than; Greenpeace Canada, David Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Club of Canada and the World Wildlife Fund.  The latter three plus Environmental Defence are all registered Charities and push the concept of eliminating fossil fuels and supporting expensive and unreliable renewable energy in the form of wind and solar.  One should note they are not the only eco-warrior intervenors pushing for the end of fossil fuel use.  Others include Pollution Probe, OSEA (Ontario Sustainable Energy Association), the Atmospheric Fund (created by the City of Toronto in 1991), Clean Air Council/Clean Air Partnership (funded by many municipal governments) and several others. One of the others is the School Energy Coalition Intervention Services (SEC) handled principally by the law firm Shepherd Rubenstein” who are also big supporters of “climate change”. The SEC (primary funding from school boards) intervenor awards alone for the April 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020 OEB year report totaled $840K which was 18% of all the awards for that year.

What becomes obvious is, our tax dollars; municipal, provincial and federal, not only pay for the Ontario Energy Board, school boards, etc. etc. via all the tax burdens we experience but also are used to create not-for-profits and charities that continually fight as intervenors and whose costs are also billed to us via our bills for both the electricity and natural gas, we use, which are also both taxed on our bills. 

A recent example was the intervenor costs associated with Enbridge’s effort to replace a deteriorating 19.8 kilometer pipeline (denied by the OEB) in Ottawa where intervenor costs for SEC were $63,319.55, for Pollution Probe $36,637.43 and $12,856.01 for Environmental Defence.

Not sure how the OEB can view intervention by those eco-warriors as a benefit to all of the households and businesses using electricity and natural gas in Ontario as we are also obliged to pick up those intervenor costs which has a multiplier effect on our tax costs. Just another tax on tax on tax!

This is but one example of why we should not wonder why Canada ranks so low in the OCED for getting things done due to our numerous regulations and the bureaucrats managing them! 

Perhaps the time has arrived to reduce our regulations and the numerous bureaucrats managing them!

Enbridge Inc Stymied by Ottawa Energy Evolution

As noted in the OEB’s (Ontario Energy Board) recent “Decision And Order” Enbridge Gas had applied to the OEB in March 2021 for approval to replace 19.8 kilometres of aging gas pipeline in Ottawa.  The pipeline is associated with the St. Laurent Pipeline which services approximately 165,000 Ottawa and Gatineau area customers. 

The OEB recently refused the replacement pipeline and basically told Enbridge to; “Plan for Lower Gas Demand” according to an article in The Energy Mix which noted: “The Ontario Energy Board sent minor shock waves through the province’s energy regulatory and municipal energy communities earlier this month with its refusal to approve the final phases of a $123.7-million pipeline replacement project in Ottawa proposed by Enbridge Gas.”  The article went on to note: “Several observers said this was the first time the OEB had refused a “leave to construct” application from a gas utility,”. 

The OEB, under Anthony Zlahtic,* the Presiding Commissioner, laid out the principal reasons for the decision and three of the five reasons were: City of Ottawa’s Energy Evolution Plan,”,Integrated Resource Planning Alternativesand “Downsizing the Pipeline due to Reduced Future Demand for Natural Gas.

Anthony Zlahic’s Background

Curiosity about Zlahic’s background led to examining his “Linkedin” file which lists his former jobs and co-incidentally claims he spent over 11 years working for Enbridge after which he worked for a subsidiary of EPCOR an electricity generation and distribution company owned by the City of Edmonton. EPCOR has subsidiary operations with one of those being Capital Power Corp of Toronto where Zlahic was employed and actively and successfully pursued wind power projects under the Ontario GEA (Green Energy Act).  He notes working with companies such as Pattern Renewable Energy as well as Samsung on industrial wind turbine projects for Capital Power and suggests he increased their “influence among key government agencies and companies directly and through the Association of Power producers of Ontario (APPrO) and Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA)”. 

Based on Zlahic’s background and activities with both Enbridge Gas and his obvious belief in IWT (industrial wind turbines) as a reliable energy source one should wonder why the OEB appointed him and WHY he didn’t recuse himself (due to his background with Enbridge) from this hearing?

Also note, Zlahic ruled; Enbridge was responsible for all intervenor costs!

Ottawa’s Prejudicial Intervenor

One of the intervenor’s whom Enbridge is obliged to pay costs to is Pollution Probe** and they were represented by Michael Brophy both a director and team member of Pollution Probe.  Interestingly enough Brophy also was a former employee of Enbridge Gas.  One should wonder, did both Zlahic and Brophy part terms with Enbridge in a favourable way or do they hold some prejudices against them?

Another important fact associated with the ruling is in respect to the City of Ottawa’s Energy Evolution Plan which was actually written by Pollution Probe as an earlier article noted.  The foregoing was confirmed by another intervenor who advised that Michael Brophy told him he was a co-author of the 101 page “plan”. The “plan” suggests the costs to Ottawa for net-zero will be $57.4 billion and result in 3,218 MW of IWT capacity and 1,060 MW of solar capacity on rooftops by 2050!

Was the OEB outcome a result of self-flagellation by Enbridge?

It seems very ironic when examining the March 2021 annual statement of Pollution Probe and note their list of “Sponsors, Major Supporters and Partners” includes none other than Enbridge Inc.  

The Pollution Probe statement filed with the CRA indicates gross revenue of $1,839,737 for the year ended March 31, 2021 but only $113,516 or 6.1% was tax receipted by them so; is this an indication they are not much of a worthwhile “charity”?  

What is not surprising to see in their annual report are numerous government donors listed including: Environment and Climate Change Canada, Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (Province of Ontario) and TAF (Toronto Atmospheric Fund [Municipality of Metro Toronto]).

Interestingly enough Michael Brophy is also listed as a “Major Donor” meaning taxpayers are hit with a double whammy in that their taxes support the government grants which supply Brophy income from Pollution Probe and his donation(s) provides him with a personal tax receipt!

The tax dollars doled out to Pollution Probe according to a Federal Grant search is in the millions of dollars and is additional to the money handed out by them via Federal Contracts worth hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars!

More self-flagellation by Enbridge

Another exampleof Enbridge’s self-flagellation is related to the net-zero push and ESG (environment, social, governance) issues. A four-page letter sent to Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock back in March 2022 clearly demonstrates the foregoing.  The President and CEO of Enbridge, Al Monaco goes into detail on how the company is changing. In in Monaco tells Fink how they have invested in wind farms and solar facilities and enshrined ESG related initiatives, etc. into their business model. An example from the letter related to ESG states: “By 2025 we’re aiming for a workforce that will include 28% racial and ethnic group representation, 40% women, 6% persons with disabilities, and 3.5% Indigenous peoples.”

We should all find it dismaying that one of Canada’s most successful companies is basically kowtowing to BlackRock and in effect, the WEF (World Economic Forum) instead of fighting back knowing the world cannot survive with the wind and solar intermittent and unreliable energy pushed by the WEF and the numerous eco-warriors like Pollution Probe.

Appeal of the Masses

For the will of the people Mr. Monaco please stand up for the enormous benefits of fossil fuels and how they have lifted billions of people around the globe out of poverty and saved so many lives!

*The 2021 Ontario Sunshine list indicates Anthony Zlahtic’s annual salary was $169,349.82!

**One of the original founders of the Strathmere Group which this writer has written a series of articles about was Pollution Probe.

Eye Catching Happenings, a Look Around

Item 1: Ontario Working to Secure Clean, Affordable and Reliable Electricity

When discovering Minister of Energy, Todd Smith, had asked OPG to “Investigate New Hydroelectric Opportunities”, it immediately had yours truly paraphrasing the Britney Spears song, “Oops, they did it again”!  The January 20. 2022 press release announced he had “asked Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to examine opportunities for new hydroelectric development in northern Ontario.”  If Minister Smith had dug though some of the files prior ministers had left behind, he would have discovered that an investigation had taken place before as Hatch Ltd completed one titled “Developing Hydroelectric Potential in Northern Ontario”.  The report even had the following quote from Bob Chiarelli, former Minister of Energy: “Our 2013 Long-Term Energy Plan expands the target for waterpower to 9,300 megawatts and establishes a priority for connecting remote communities. This report helps identify opportunities for hydroelectric projects that can help Ontario be ready to generate power when and where we need it.”  Ontarians know; that never happened!

It sure appears for some reason the current Minister is pleased to hand out our tax dollars to repeat the same review which serves to only further delay the potential to increase Ontario’s hydroelectric power.

Item 2: India’s solar irradiance 7 per cent below long-term average

The foregoing article from a few days ago stated:  “In what could have significant ramifications for productivity and returns from solar power projects in India, a latest study has found solar irradiance over the country over the past ten years was 7 per cent below long-term average.” What that suggests is generation from the 49.3 GW (gigawatts) reportedly in place in India at the end of 2021 will not deliver the generation anticipated because of those damn clouds. To make matters worse, another article, indicated India has recently experienced several very high demand periods which came close to breaking the record set in 2021. The article goes on to suggest India could face “widespread blackouts this summer”. The issue of energy security seems to be spreading further afield beyond countries who have adopted the “net-zero” COP-26 mantra.  It’s a bit of a surprise that India is facing those blackouts as they have targeted solar as their principal renewable source coupled with nuclear power. Additionally India did not commit to net-zero by 2050 at COP-26 but have instead said they “will aim” at 2070 as the year they consider it as possible.

Item 3a: McMaster University looks to install four gas-powered generators on Cootes Drive

A couple of weeks ago I penned an article pointing out the fallacies of the ICI (Industrial Conservation Initiative) program and how taxpayer funded institutions, such as York University, are taking advantage of it to the detriment of small and medium sized companies and their status as Class B ratepayers. On the same day the article was posted another article came to my attention from the Hamilton Spectator which was about McMaster University’s plan to install four gas-powered generators specifically aimed “to reduce the university’s energy costs” under the ICI program.  Curiosity piqued led to the examination of expenditures in their financial statements but I first looked at the budget expenditures by the Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities and noted those expenditures for the 2019-2020 year were just north of $6.655 billion.  Looking at York University’s financial statements disclosed for the 2017-year expenditures on “Taxes and Utilities” were $33.3 million and those had declined to $23 million for their 2021 year-end suggesting the installation of two gas-generators may have saved them $10 million annually.  Looking at McMaster’s financials discloses their “Utilities and maintenance” in 2017 were $38.6 million and for their 2020 year-end showed a small increase to $38.7 million. Presumably by installing four gas-powered generators they too will be able to reduce those costs utilizing the ICI program.  It seems there is no end to the taxpayer funded bureaucracies need for more and more taxpayer and ratepayer dollars.  The time has come for the Ontario Minister of Energy to kill the ICI program and stop the continual pocket picking of us taxpayers/ratepayers.

Item 3b: Phasing out gas plants by 2030

So, while 32 municipalities have teamed up with Jack Gibbons and the OCAA (Ontario Clean Air Alliance) insisting Ontario phase out all the gas plants by 2030; they are ignoring bureaucracies in their backyard who are installing gas-powered generators. Both Toronto and Hamilton have signed on despite the universities in their municipalities installing those gas-powered generators to reduce their energy costs. That seems extremely ironic as the gas generating plants provide back-up power for that intermittent and unreliable wind and solar generation whereas these gas generators have the sole purpose of reducing energy costs. It is also fascinating to note who some of those who donate to the OCAA are too, as they include none other than George Smitherman who when Minister of Energy during the McGuinty era brought us the GEA (Green Energy Act) which he promised would only raise rates by 1%.  Another supporter of the OCAA is Peter Tabuns of the NDP who supported Smitherman and the GEA. The supporters also include renewable energy companies and their founders as well as individuals like Mark Winfield of York University and Glen Estill, past president of CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association) etc. etc. Those profiting from wind and solar seem happy to donate to help Gibbons continue his false premise that wind/solar and Quebec will supply all the electricity we need!

Item 4: Ottawa reveals its latest plan to plant 2 billion trees by 2030

No doubt many Canadians will remember when our PM Justin Trudeau, met with Greta Thunberg on September 27, 2019 before they marched in the “climate” rally in Montreal and then shortly after the march promised he would plant 2 billion trees in the next 10 years.  An article in the CBC dated December 21, 2021 indicated two years after the promise only 8.5 million trees had been planted so at that rate it would take 470 years before they were all planted rather than the 10 years he promised Greta. Not to worry though as the intention is to speed things up by using our tax dollars to get the annual planting up to levels of 320 million annually by 2025 and spending up to $355 million per year. We should find it amazing that a teenager without any scientific training has so much influence on politicians such as Trudeau that he commits to spend $3 billion of Canada’s tax dollars just so he can get a photo op with Greta and later one with him actually planting a tree. 

Conclusion: Climate Science is Unsettled

One hopes the foregoing demonstrates the ineptitude of our political leaders in respect to their worries about “climate change”!  Their worries have been imposed by guiding lights such as Greta Thunberg, Jack Gibbons and results in those politicians refusing to give up on the “net-zero” push despite the many qualified individuals such as Steven E. Koonin, telling us “Climate Science” is Unsettled!  

Who Pretends to Save us From Climate Change and the Pandemic?

An article in the Financial Post on December 30, 2021 signaled the bloom may be off the rose in respect to the market price of renewable energy firms. While the article points to the drop in value of stocks in the European travel and tourism sector in 2021, they note green renewable energy stocks fared much worse with values dropping despite the Stoxx market hovering at record highs.

Vestas Wind Systems, the world’s largest manufacturer of industrial wind turbines saw their stock price fall by a third and for Siemens Gamesa Renewable their stock price fell by 37 per cent. The world’s largest offshore wind farm company Orsted A/S saw their market price fall 33 per cent. Despite the drop in the price of their shares however, they still trade at a high P/E (price/earnings) ratio.

Price Earnings Ratio The P/E ratio is calculated by dividing the market value price per share by the company’s earnings per share. Earnings per share (EPS) is the amount of a company’s profit allocated to each outstanding share of a company’s common stock“                                                                                     

To put the foregoing in context Vestas P/E ratio is currently 32.9 meaning it would take that number of years before they generated the total EPS at their current market price. For Orsted A/S the P/E ratio is 44.2 and in Siemens case it doesn’t apply as they lost money in their latest reporting period.

Another “green” associated company whose stock market price has reached astronomical levels is Tesla the electric vehicle manufacturer. An article in the NY Times in late October stated the following:

Tesla is worth more than virtually every other major carmaker in the world combined. Analysts are squarely of two minds about its current level. In the bull camp: Daniel Ives of Wedbush Securities, who tweeted yesterday, “Tesla hitting $1 trillion is just for starters.” In the bear camp: Craig Irwin of Roth Capital Partners, who wrote in a client note last week that Tesla’s stock — which then traded at 173 times next year’s earnings — was “egregiously overvalued.“  Based on the foregoing “bear camp” prophecy it is easy to understand why Elon Musk reportedlyoffloaded US$16.4 billion worth of shares since early November.“ What is also surprising is that Tesla’s bond rating is still in the junk category at BB+!

With politicians from all of the developed world countries pushing to eliminate ICE (internal combustion engines) sales and endorsing EV (electric vehicle) sales however, they have directly impacted the price of Tesla’s shares. Their efforts to free the world of emissions from the transportation sector has made Musk the richest man in the world. Pretty sure he appreciates the work of the UNIPCC bureaucrats, eco-warriors and the “woke” politicians who helped him get to that pedestal!

What about the Covid-19 pandemic?

 The other issue that surfaced just two years ago in the form of a “pandemic” has also presumably made rich people richer.  As one example it’s worth noting Moderna’s stock price on March 1, 2020 was US$29.95 and now is US$234.70 for a gain of almost 700%.  Pfizer Inc’s stock was trading at US$30.97 per share back on March 1, 2020 as the pandemic lockdowns hit and its current price is US$56.74 share so has almost doubled in less than 2 years.

Both the Moderna and Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines obviously played a hand in their increasing stock market value particularly as they are fully endorsed by the CDC (Center for Disease Control) whose spokesperson seems to be Dr. Anthony Fauci. Fauci presses the need to be vaccinated and get booster shots.  He is the Chief Medical Advisor to the President so since the pandemic arrived, he has reached a position of power that is no doubt, the envy of every other bureaucrat in the USA and elsewhere.

Who owns Moderna, Pfizer and Tesla?

It is an interesting exercise to quickly look at some of the major shareholders of both Moderna, Pfizer and Tesla and it is fascinating to discover the names amongst the “top ten” shareholders. Those in the top 10 list of shareholders for Tesla, Moderna and Pfizer include BlackRock, SSgA (State Street Global Advisors) and Vanguard.  Fidelity Management are among the 10 largest shareholders of both Moderna and Tesla.

 At this point it is worth knowing all four of the above “asset managers” are co-incidentally also members of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative which happens to be an outgrowth of GFANZ (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero).  GFANZ is where Mark Carney, former Governor of the Bank of England is the Chair and Michael Bloomberg is Co-chair. Larry Fink, Chairman and CEO of BlackRock is also listed as a Principal of GFANZ!   

Surely the foregoing connections are all co-incidental and those entities, the rich and famous guiding them and represented under the GFANZ umbrella are simply out to save the world from “climate change” while protecting us “commoners” from the perils of both that happening and the pandemic that arrived two years ago!

Someone is making money from both of the concepts of “climate change” (formerly referred to as “global warming”) and the Covid-19 pandemic and based on the above cursory review it would appear to be many of those amongst the elites and super rich.

Perhaps some of the less naïve politicians around the world are also benefitting too but that would require some serious investigation into the possible “conflict of interest” issues they are supposed to abstain from once they are elected!

Wow, Quite the Party at Glasgow with 39,509 registered for COP 26

Recently, a friend and ardent advocate for the truth about “climate change” sent me the link to the Provisional list of registered participants (PLOP) to the COP26 festivities just ended in Glasgow. While most of the Provincial Governments sent participants to COP26, Quebec stands out with over 20 attendees whereas Ontario sent only 4. The provincial number of attendees however pales compared to those attending from the Federal Liberal government which includes Trudeau’s Lead Speechwriter as well as his Official Photographer! 

It is worth noting from the below chart (posted on the 1616 page PDF file of attendees at COP26) the number of (NGO) “Non-governmental organizations” (1,823) who attended the conference with 14,033 participants. Many of those NGO are “charities”.   Now, try to imagine the millions of dollars they spent and why this should be considered a charitable activity?

One assumes the “charitable attendees” were not included in media reports stating: “Canada sent 277 delegates and 17 press aides along for the ride. That’s a lot of emissions – and a lot of taxpayer dollars“.  Despite the foregoing, in a search of PLOP many Canadian registered eco-warrior charities did send lots of delegates. The PLOP listing attendees frequently fails to indicate the country associated with individual names but in doing the “ctrl/f” search a number of Canadian charities, etc. are identifiable! 

To wit:

Those eco-charities with a few identifiable attendees from Canada included: Environmental Defence, WWF, Sierra Club, David Suzuki Foundation and a new charity established by none other than Bruce Lourie, called; “The Transition Accelerator” (TA) where he is Chairman of the Board! The TA’s aim is, “to support Canada’s transition to a net zero future while solving societal challenges“.  Based on their CRA financial filings they have not had to issue a “tax receipt” since their formation as their revenue ($867K) came from other “registered charities” such as the “Ivey Foundation” where Lourie sits as President.

The Ivey Foundation has also handed out grants to Environmental Defence where he spent time as Board Chair and built his relationship with Rick Smith when they coauthored a book. Smith was also an attendee at COP26 but more on him below! 

Another attendee of COP26 was IISD (International Institute of Sustainable Development), a Winnipeg based charity which also received funding from the Ivey Foundation.  The big money for IISD however comes from the UN, the Canadian Federal government and some from the provinces or province of Manitoba.  Total tax receipted funds were a miserly $53,617. (0.2% of gross revenue or enough to cover about 20% of their highest paid employee’s income) out of total revenue of $25.6 million based on their most recent filing with the CRA. IISD appear to have sent at least 12 people to COP26 and will, presumably, claim all their expenses as a “charitable activity”!

The other Canadian entity I was able to identify is a “not-for-profit” named Climate Action Network (CAN-Rac)* who sent at least 30 individuals to COP26. CAN-Rac are a coalition of over 100 organizations which includes Environmental Defence, Sierra Club and the David Suzuki Foundation.  CAN-Rac has been known to spin untruths as pointed out in an article yours truly penned over a year ago.

Now, let’s return to Rick Smith who was an attendee of COP26 as head honcho of the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC), along with one other CICC officer.  CICC is the institution created by Catherine McKenna when she held the Ministerial post of Environment and Climate Change and handed out $20 million of our tax dollars to create it.  Presumably Smith is not only happy with his presidential position but also pleased to have reconnected with Bruce Lourie who is one of the many members of the Board of Directors.

 As is obvious, Canada once again had the highest number of attendees at COP26 with 277 attendees! If one does the simple math of dividing the Total Party attendees by the number of countries the average is approximately 110 per country.  Canadian attendees were two- and one-half times that average which suggests the Canadian contingent emitted 250% more CO2 per attendee than any other country in attendance!.

Sure, doesn’t appear our Trudeau led Government are practicing what they preach to us minions!

It appears to be an unmitigated “PLOP”!

*CAN-Rac also had a former Board member in attendance in the form of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault.

The Canadian Institute of Climate Choices want us to Sink not Swim

Surely it was purely coincidental the CICC (Canadian Institute of Climate Choices) released their report titled: “Global climate policy acceleration means sink-or-swim decade for Canada’s economy” on the same, pre-announced day, Commissioner Steve Allan’s Alberta Inquiry into anti-Alberta energy campaigns was released!  Or was it?

Both of the foregoing reports were released on October 21, 2021 and while the Allan report was about 700 pages the CICC report was a meagre 122 pages.  The latter however, was full of disaster warnings about “climate change” and suggested “fossil fuels” were being replaced with wind and solar.  The CICC report went so far as to compliment China (the world’s largest emitter of CO 2) for being “an early leader in electric vehicles and solar technology”. The Allan Report (657 pages) was oblique in accusing Canadian environmental groups of using foreign funding to curtail and end fossil fuel generation. The foregoing  was concluded despite an independent report from Deloitte’s noting; “Total foreign funding, therefore, of “Canadian-based environmental initiatives” was $1.28 billion for the period 2003-2019.”  Apparently “climate change” activism is not a sin or a crime despite its probable outcome to create energy poverty.

Looking specifically at the CICC, “sink or swim” report one should note it is truly meant to scare the reader by suggesting if Canada doesn’t move to “net-zero” emissions we are in big trouble.  Specifically, their report states: “Around 2,000 workers have been affected by coal power closures, whereas over 880,000 people work in the transition-vulnerable sectors identified in Figure 18.” Figure 18 (page 59), discloses those workers who are reputedly at risk of losing their employment are in a variety of jobs including those in many of the areas at which Canada excels such as: oil and gas extraction, emissions intensive manufacturing, mining and quarrying, transportation equipment manufacturing and support for mining and oil and gas extraction! Needless to say, the forecast of those 880,000 job losses caught the media’s attention.

The CICC report in “picture terms” lays out the potential impacts in a chart (Figure 1) on page 6 by using a forecast from Central Bankslabelled as,“NGFS” (Network for Greening the Financial System).  The NGFS was launched by 8 founding central banks, under the leadership of Banque de France‘s governor François Villeroy de Galhau, the Dutch Central Bank‘s Frank Elderson and the Bank of England‘s former governor Mark Carney.” It should come as no surprise Mark Carney was actively involved in its formation. Their membership now contains 95 central banks The data, needless to say, is scary as without adoption of “net-zero” by 2050, in non-adapting countries, GDP is projected to fall by over 10% from current levels. CICC commissioned Planetrics (a Mckinsey & Company subsidiary), an international climate-risk analytics company, to stress test Canadian publicly traded companies and companies with Canadian operations. Apparently CICC with close to 100 reputed taxpayer supported “experts” was unable to perform that exercise.

At this point it is important to note the CICC was a creation of the now retired Catherine McKenna, former Federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. The CICC was created with $20 million taxpayer dollars and loaded its staff, Board of Directors, expert panels and advisory council with a myriad of eco-warriors mainly dependent on government largesse. Those eco-warriors seem intent on decimating Canada’s economic wellbeing via their actions in support of our current government and ending our dependence on fossil fuels.

Needless to say, we should believe the release of the CICC report to coincide with the Allan report was meant to offset its release.  The damning information in the Allan report only confirmed how Canadian environmental groups accepted foreign contributions to push the narrative—Canadian production of coal, oil and gas must cease!  One need look no further, then note, the current President of CICC is Rick Smith who spent 9 years at Environmental Defence pushing the “climate change” agenda. Failing that belief, perhaps the word came down from Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change or his Chief of Staff, Marlo Raynolds whose past relationship with Rick Smith demonstrates serious collaboration between Pembina and Environmental Defence via the Strathmere Group.  

Both Raynolds and Smith signed the Strathmere Goup’s “Declarations” jointly and one of those clearly was:

Declare a moratorium on expansion of tar sands development and halt further approval of infrastructure that would lock us into using dirty liquid fuels from sources such as tar sands, oil shale and liquid coal.”

We should be confident the release of the CICC’s “sink or swim” report on the same day as the Steven Allan Inquiry was planned to ensure the main stream media focused on the forecasted loss of those 880,000 jobs that will occur should Canada not commit to “net-zero”!

Collaboration between CICC and those in political power clearly reflects their intentions to harm Canada’s economy!

Jack Gibbons, Chair & CEO of OCAARI, a Registered Charity, Advocates to Create More Energy Poverty

United Way on December 16, 2020, posted an article about energy poverty and what causes it.  The article stated: “Canada’s most populace province, Ontario, has the highest numbers of households struggling with energy poverty (1.1 M households).”

To put some context on the foregoing; those 1.1 million households would represent 22.9% of all residential electricity customers and 29.4% of all natural gas residential customers according to the OEB’s (Ontario Energy Board) 2020 yearbook of each customer group.

For some unknown reason the OCAA (Ontario Clean Air Alliance) who have three (3) employees, and five (5) directors one of whom is Jack Gibbons in each category, have been making presentations to numerous and gullible municipal politicians across the province. Those presentations were meant to convince the municipalities they should push the Provincial Government to close all of Ontario’s gas plants. At last count 32 municipalities have bought into the OCAA’s diatribe. The IESO reported closing those gas plants would drive up average residential electricity bills by $1,200 per annum and also cause blackouts.

It is interesting to note; Gibbons, back in May 2006, was a big fan of gas plants speaking out in support of the Portlands Energy Centre (PEC) a proposed 550 MW gas plant and was quoted as follows:  “Some people are opposed to a power plant (of any kind) in Toronto — period,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. However, “some people are not fully aware how clean the Portlands Energy Centre will be.”

Should one go seeking for Gibbons biography you find little about him but what yours truly found was a list of speaker biographies in a website called “cleanairhamilton.ca” and what it stated was: “The Ontario Clean Air Alliance is a coalition of 80 organizations including the City of Hamilton, the Regions of Peel and Waterloo and the City of Toronto. Our member organizations represent over 6 million Ontarians.” These days the OCAA don’t make the foregoing claim but that doesn’t seem to have diminished Gibbon’s ability to dazzle the elected politicians in those municipalities.

The OCAA and the registered charity OCAA Research Institute (OCAARI) report they generated gross revenue (combined) of only $92,133.89 for the year ended September 30, 2020.  The OCAARI filing with the CRA indicates, for 2020, their gross revenue was $92,136.00.  Not sure where the difference of $2.11 went but perhaps Gibbons purchased a coffee! Curiosity piqued, a look back at the oldest (posted) CRA results for the year ended September 30, 2016 indicates total revenue of $63,042.00. That year the OCAARI reported charitable expenditures of $107,245 whereas in the 2020 report to the CRA those charitable expenditures were shown as $79,690.

 Recognizing the limited revenue being generated by this seemingly powerful organization, I reached out to Gibbons with the following question related to their 2020 CRA filing which indicated $6,645 as the amount spent on “management and administration”: 

I was looking at the OCAA’s September 30, 2020 filing with the CRA and found the following info kind of shocking so was wondering how you and Angela manage to survive on so little compensation?

 Can you explain please as you can’t possibly survive on so little, particularly all three of you listed on your website? Curious if you are being paid by others like Hydro Quebec or TAF or perhaps the IVEY Foundation?  Wondering and would sure appreciate an explanation.” 

What I got back in response was:

Hi Parker, We have two organizations: a) Ontario Clean Air Alliance Research Inc (OCAARI) which is a registered charity; and b) Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) which is a non-profit.

As of September 30, 2021, OCAARI has never had any employees.  But on October 1, 2021 Angela became an employee of OCAARI.

OCAA has had employees in the past. I have been a volunteer for many years. We have not received funding from TAF or Ivey for many years. We have never received funding from Hydro Quebec.

Jack

As noted above the posting on their website indicates “combined revenue” for both organizations for their 2020 yearend, was $92,133.89 and charitable donations were $79,690 which doesn’t leave much available to pay his two staff members particularly if they continue to spend money on “political activities”.  

For the 2020 year they reported expenses of $43,698 on political activities meaning they blew past their gross revenues for the year.

From all appearances the CRA with in excess of 45,000 employees as of March 30, 2020 has no problems with the OCAARI operating as a charity and can presumably find nothing wrong with their activities or filings with them.

The above demonstrates a sad state of affairs for those of us who pay taxes to supplement the activities of this particular organization (and presumably many others) whose aim under their CEO and Chair, Jack Gibbons, seems dedicated to driving more households in Ontario into energy poverty.

We need the bureaucrats to do their job!

ECO-Warriors in Shock as Last Week’s Events Unfolded

A few news stories over the past week caught my eye due to their rational views overturning claims from ENGO pushing for success at COP 26 to achieve the “net-zero” target. Here are three of the best.

Shutting Ontario’s Gas Plants Would lead to Blackouts and Cost Households $1,200 More Annually

On October 7, 2021 Ontario’s IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) issued a press release announcing they had reviewed requests from thirty (30) Ontario municipalities associated with their demand gas plants should be shut down.  The press release highlighted the findings of the report titled: “Decarbonization and Ontario’s Electricity Systemwhich were:

Completely phasing out natural gas generation by 2030 would lead to blackouts and the system changes that would be required would increase residential electricity bills by 60 per cent.

Ontario’s electricity grid is only responsible for roughly three per cent of the province’s total GHG emissions and is well positioned to support the electrification of other sectors.

Ontario’s electricity system is constantly evolving and the IESO is actively integrating emerging technologies that have the potential to meet Ontario’s long-term needs.”

The 60% increase in the first highlight noted above would increase residential bills by $100/month along with generating blackouts. The second highlight notes Ontario’s electric grid is one of the cleanest in the world yet eco-warriors such as the CRA registered charity; the OCAA (Ontario Clean Air Alliance) want to make it 100% emissions free but are seemingly OK if we experience “blackouts!

Followers of my blog will no doubt recall a prior article about the OCAA and their Chair, Jack Gibbons who wowed those 30 municipal councils convincing them to push the Ford led government to close the gas plants. It is interesting to look at the IESO data on the day of their press release as it easily demonstrates the inability of wind and solar generation to provide a reliable supply of energy.  Hour 17 (5PM) ended with those two generating sources providing a miserly 0.93% (157 MW) of that hour’s demand which was approximately 16,860 MW.  On the other hand, flexible and reliable gas generation provided 22.6% (3,807 MW) for that hour ensuring supply was sufficient for ratepayer needs.

Ontario ratepayers should be thankful IESO provided a report with facts to dispel the lies of the eco-warriors such as those spewed by Jack Gibbons!

You’re kidding when you say: UK’s Biggest Source of Greenhouse Gas is an ‘Eco’ Power Station

A very recent article in the UK’s Daily Mail cited the European Academies Science Advisory Council and stated; “using woody biomass for power is not effective in mitigating climate change and may even increase the risk of dangerous climate change”.  It is always gratifying to have others confirm what you, as an individual, noted in the past and this was one such occasion. An article I wrote and posted on Energy Probe basically reached the same conclusion as the EASAC over seven years ago in March 2014. The article noted wood pellets produced in North and South America for DRAX were shipped to England for transportation by rail to Yorkshire where DRAX’s generation station is located.

The Daily Mail’s article went on to note: “Drax in Yorkshire burns wood pellets, which are treated as a ‘renewable’ fuel and the site has attracted more than £800million of taxpayer subsidies. But analysis shows that the burning of wood for power – known as biomass – has been the cause of more carbon dioxide emissions than coal since 2019.” The article goes on to state: “Drax is Europe’s third largest CO2 emitter, exceeded only by Belchatow in Poland and Neurath in Germany. In the UK, Drax leads CO2 emissions, with RWE’s Pembroke gas power station coming in second with 4.3Mt of CO2.“ It does seem rather strange the  accounting rules allow Drax to be treated as “carbon neutral”!

Nice to see the truth for a change when it comes to the push to decarbonize the world by the eco-warriors but one should wonder why it took EASAC and the MSM so long to recognize those lies?

Greenpeace Loses Supreme Court Case Against BP

BP (British Petroleum) had been granted a permit by the UK government to drill for oil in the Vorlich Field in the North Sea but before they could activate the permit Greenpeace decided to challenge them in the courts.  The article, in the Rigzone Energy Network October 8, 2021 stated  “Environmentalist group Greenpeace has lost its court case which challenged the UK government’s decision to grant a permit to BP to drill the Vorlich Field”. Greenpeace’s principal claim was “the government gave no consideration to the climate impact of burning the fossil fuels extracted”.

The written ruling stated: “Although the appellants’ aspiration is for such extraction to cease, it does not appear to be contended that the UK economy is not still reliant in a number of different ways on the consumption of oil and gas. At present, a shortage of oil and gas supplies is a matter of public concern,” the Lord President, Carloway, added, referencing recent political developments around the gas price crisis. The ruling went on to state: “It would not be practicable, in an assessment of the environmental effects of a project for the extraction of fossil fuels, for the decision maker to conduct a wide-ranging examination into the effects, local or global, of the use of that fuel by the final consumer,”

The court however did push the decision up the line to elected politicians noting: “The Secretary of State’s submission that these are matters for decision at a relatively high level of Government, rather than either by the court or in relation to one oilfield project, is correct. The issue is essentially a political and not a legal one,” Lord Carloway concluded.

What the ruling suggests is Greenpeace and other ENGO should confine their activities to lobbying politicians and their bureaucrats as the legal system will only deal with laws passed by parliament.

The article also made mention that back in 2019 Greenpeace tried “to stop BP from drilling on the Vorlich field by intercepting its chartered drilling rig Paul B. Loyd, Jr. some 80 miles off Scotland, forcing the rig to turn back. Several arrests were made as a result.”

The three events noted above give us hope there are people still left on the planet with rational thought processes.  Perhaps some of them will infiltrate the MSM and the political parties!  We can only hope!  

As an aside the “net-zero” concept and electrification of everything in our lives was pushed via TV ads back in 1961 and the ads are still available on YouTube!  “Live Better Electrically”  No mention of either climate change or emissions back then however!