Ontario Expanding Energy Efficiency to Help Families and Businesses Keep Costs Down

The following is a copy of the e-mail I sent to Ontario Minister of Energy, Todd Smith October 4, 2022, seeking information related to the captioned press release. If, and when I receive a response, I will post it!

“Minister Smith,

Your recent press release starts with:  

The Ontario government is increasing funding for the province’s energy-efficiency programs by $342 million, bringing the total investment to more than $1 billion over the current four-year electricity conservation framework.

I have read this over several times and fail to find anything other than the following that suggests rates will decline:  

This funding will support a new voluntary Residential Demand Response Program with an incentive for homes with an existing central air conditioning or heat pump unit and smart thermostat to help lower energy use at peak times and lower bills.

So turning up our air conditioners and turning down our electric furnaces (etc.) along with walking around in the dark will reputedly deliver these savings ($650 million) according to the following  in your press release!  

“By 2025, this expansion of energy-efficiency programs will help deliver enough annual electricity savings to power approximately 130,000 homes every year and reduce costs for consumers by over $650 million

The release also says:  

Our government’s success in driving electrification of industry and transportation and strong economic growth is increasing electricity demand

So demand will supposedly increase with the foregoing “electrification of industry and transportation” but by using less we Households “reputedly” will see a reduction in costs!  

Am I missing something or will this annual “$650 million” of “reduced costs” be allocated to taxpayers or has your ministry suddenly discovered some cheap source of electricity generation via new technology or some “net-zero” imports from our neighbours for a cheap price?

As my local MPP and a taxpayer I sure would appreciate a little clarification!

Yours truly,

Parker Gallant,

A concerned resident of your constituency”

Response from Ontario Ministry of Energy:

“Dodsworth, Michael (ENERGY) <Michael.Dodsworth@ontario.ca>   
to me, Todd

Good morning Parker,

Minister Smith forwarded me your message which I am pleased to respond to on his behalf.

Energy efficiency programming is a fast and cost effective measure that can save families money and reduce demand for electricity from the grid. These programs, which include supports for energy efficiency retrofits, Distributed Energy Resources and the Residential Demand Response Program you referenced, all will mean reductions in demand for electricity.

These programs are a complement to the government’s comprehensive plan for addressing increased demand for power due to economic growth and electrification, including ongoing capacity resource procurements, rather than an alternative.

By reducing demand and in particular peak demand, we can offset the need for some new electricity generation resources. This will mean a cost reduction for ratepayers and a net system benefit of ~$300 million (the cost reduction of $650 million less the increased investment of $342 million).

I hope this addresses your question satisfactorily.

Best,

My response to the Ministry:

Michael,

Thank you for your response but I fail to see how it will, as you state: “mean a cost reduction for ratepayers and a net system benefit of ~$300 million”!

Let’s examine your response bit by bit!

Energy efficiency (1.) programming is a fast and cost effective measure that can save families money and reduce demand for electricity from the grid. These programs, which include supports for energy efficiency retrofits, (1.) Distributed Energy Resources (2.) and the Residential Demand Response Program (3.) you referenced, all will mean reductions in demand for electricity.

1.Your claim on how “energy efficiency” will save families money ignores the fact “supports” for the programs are provided by taxpayer funds.  I would guess ratepayers without the ability to provide the additional funds from those taxpayers will be unable to afford their portion of the costs.  I would point out most ratepayers are also taxpayers so those unable to come up with the additional funds will be unable to invest in those “energy efficiency retrofits”

2.Distributed Energy Resources are those such as: “rooftop” or “ground mounted” solar, “wind turbines” “battery storage”, “small hydro” etc. and are contracted at rates well in excess of those of the likes of OPG, Bruce Power, etc. as they exist outside the purview of the OEB!

3.From my personal observation point this is the only one not supported by other ratepayers or taxpayers however the “installed cost” of a “smart meter” is a higher cost than an analog meter and the costs of those are spread throughout all ratepayers. It is also a fact smart meters have a shorter lifespan than an analog meter meaning they must be replaced sooner adding to the costs of this endeavour.

These programs are a complement to the government’s comprehensive plan for addressing increased demand for power due to economic growth and electrification( 4.), including ongoing capacity resource procurements, rather than an alternative.

4.While you and Minister Smith reference “electrification” and the OCP’s full support of the concept it appears the cost of that objective and the new capacity required by Ontario to meet that target have not had any serious focus.  To look at just one study; NREL, a national laboratory of the US Department of Energy, in their study stated “Widespread electrification increases 2050 U.S. electricity consumption by 20% and 38% in the medium and high adoption scenarios, respectively and relative to the reference.” For Ontario let’s focus on the “medium” scenario!  At the end of 2021 IESO reported total grid connected capacity in Ontario was 38,079 MW. If we assume Pickering Nuclear gets approval to extend its life that reflects the need to add 7,600 MW of NEW capacity (20% of 2021 capacity) or 10,600 MW (28%) should Pickering renewal not receive the green light! Please note the study states “consumption” which means both wind and solar plus storage would need to be at least triple that capacity level!

By reducing demand and in particular peak demand (5.), we can offset the need for some new electricity generation resources. This will mean a cost reduction (5.) for ratepayers and a net system benefit of ~$300 million (the cost reduction of $650 million less the increased investment of $342 million).

5.Should we assume a cost study has not been done based on the claim there will be a “cost reduction for ratepayers” or is this a false claim?  Many of us ratepayers lived through the McGuinty/Wynne days and constantly were fed similar stories from them related to the GEA. Under pressure from the largest manufacturing companies in the province they reacted to the false message and came up with the ICI (Industrial Conservation Initiative) which allowed those companies to benefit from significant cost reductions by reducing demand during just five (5) annual “peak demand” periods which still exists today. The incentive was so great those companies invested heavily in a variety of gas generators to take advantage of the incentive.  It should come as no surprise, due to this push by Ontario and many other jurisdictions around the world opining for “net-zero” that manufacturers of those generators have benefited greatly as a quote from a recent article suggests: “The global gas generator sets market is expected to grow from $7.82 billion in 2021 to $8.3 billion in 2022 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.48%. The gas generator sets market is expected to grow to $11.15 billion in 2026 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.57%.”  It is equally important that you and Minister Smith should be aware that many stand alone administered “public sector” corporations such as colleges, universities, etc. are now ICI beneficiaries which equates to an indirect and hidden form of taxation. 

In summary, I and my blog followers, would love to see some proof the recent moves by the Ministry of Energy (reputedly endorsed by IESO) will achieve that “net system benefit of $300 million” you allude to in your response!

Looking forward to your response,

Regards,

Parker Gallant,

Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives

The Sun Shines in the Middle of the Night in Ontario

It’s unclear how Ontario’s Minister of Energy got it to happen but he somehow managed to get some of those solar panels hooked up to the grid to generate power after the sun set starting late on September 3rd and through the early morning on September 4th as IESO data disclosed.

On September 3, 2022 during hours 20 to hour 24 (hour ending at 12 PM) those solar panels managed to generate 9 MWh each of the five hours and they continued to generate power during the early hours on September 4th managing to continue generating 9 MWh for the first four hours and in hour 5 they fell and only produced 6 MWh and fell further over the next hour producing only 2 MWh in Hour 6 but jumped to 7 MWh in hour 7.  The total generation of those solar panels over the 12 hours of darkness was 96 MWh or about the average annual consumption of 10 Ontario households. If they managed to produce that much solar generation during just one of our summer days, we should try to imagine how much they could produce during the low sunshine winter months!

One should wonder if some new technology developed in Ontario has allowed the foregoing to happen or was the early Spanish model used? 

In Spain’s early adaption companies operating solar farms under lucrative contracts somehow managed to generate solar power in the middle of the night but they were called out:  “Spanish newspaper El Mundo found that between November and January, 4500 megawatt hours (MWh) of solar energy were sold to the electricity grid between midnight and seven in the morning.

It has been suggested that some plants in the regions of Castilla-La-Mancha, Canarias and Andalucía have been using diesel generators connected to their solar panel arrays to illegally benefit from government subsidies.

Perhaps the concept of nighttime solar generation was what was visualized by the Ontario Minister of Energy, Todd Smith in his directive to IESO instructing them “to develop an achievable pathway to phase out natural gas generation and achieve zero emissions in the electricity system”!

Were the results of September 3rd and 4th a demonstration of new technology developed that Minister Smith believes will help to achieve zero emissions in the electricity system or is someone firing up those “diesel generators” to take advantage of the “lucrative contracts” our past and present politicians have signed onto?

PS: What I got back on my query to IESO about this:

“Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.  We had to reach out to a few people for this.  There were issues in receiving data from Northland Power.  These issues have been resolved on the IESO’s end.

I hope this answers your questions.

Regards,

IESO Customer Relations

Norway and Canada, Hmm, Which One Benefits from Net-Zero Targets?

Norway, in respect to “energy” is very similar to two of Canada’s provinces and the two provinces are Quebec and Alberta.

Similarities to Quebec

Norway are more similar to Quebec than Alberta as almost all of their electricity generated is hydro power and much of it is exported to the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the UK. In 2020 Norway generated 154.2 TWh (92% hydro) and exported 20.5 TWh.  Quebec has also been blessed with hydro power and in 2020 Hydro Quebec generated 202.7 TWh and exported 33.3 TWh to the USA. 

Another similarity is both Quebec and Norway have embraced EV (electric vehicles) and Quebec have pushed sales via grants (including the Federal grant) and in Norway’s case by a stack of other incentives including free parking, approval to use bus lanes, etc. In addition, buyers pay no taxes as the following chart illustrates. One should find it humorous that the “scrapping fee” is identical in the chart but perhaps Norwegians have figured out how to deal with those EV batteries at end of their life?

Cost of EV versus ICE Automibles in Norway

In 2021 plug-in (EV + Hybrid) sales in Norway represented 90% of all auto sales. In Quebec EV sales were 9% of auto sales and the only province in Canada who beat them was BC whose EV sales were 11.6%. Quite the difference from Norway but the chart certainly shows why!

Yet another recent occurrence in Norway has led to the creation of another similarity to Quebec. it’s related to the lower snow and rainfall in the current year meaning Norway may reduce Its electricity exports to the countries with whom they have interties which are; Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom, Finland and the Netherlands. As noted in a recent article just several days ago, “reservoirs in Norway are less than half full, even though the average for this time of year is 74.4%.”

While Quebec doesn’t appear to currently have the “reservoir” problem Norway’s experiencing they nevertheless ask their consumers to reduce consumption during peak periods which occur during winter because most Quebec households heat their homes with the “emissions free” hydropower. In Quebec’s case they have firm contracts with US energy companies guaranteeing them supplies so it’s Quebecers who are affected rather than buyers of their electricity. Perhaps Norway is concerned all those EV owners will want to charge their batteries so to hell with the other European countries that will be in a power shortage come the winter?

Similarities to Alberta

Norway’s similarities to Alberta are related only to the fact they produce oil and gas and export much of it.  In Norway’s case they have eleven (11) gas pipelines to Germany, the UK, France and Belgium and also have an LNG terminal as well as a number of oil pipelines. Pretty well all of these pipelines emanate from the offshore Norwegian continental shelf where Norway mines it’s oil and gas. Their access to oil and gas has benefited them to the extreme particularly since the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russia/Ukraine war!  To wit: “In the last months of 2021, the value of Norway’s oil and gas exports amounted to more than 100 billion kroner (€10 billion) per month. That is almost three times more than in the same period in 2020. In the course of the year, production of oil increased to 102 million standard cubic meters and natural gas to 113 billion cubic meters.” Norway’s world ranking for oil and gas reserves are respectively 22nd (13th in annual production) and 17th (3rd in annual production).

Canada’s oil and gas reserves respectively rank; 3rd (4th in annual production) and 18th (6th in annual production) in the world however, Canada’s principal market for both is the U.S.  The latter is unlikely to change as it is almost impossible to get pipelines approved and built due to control by Federal regulations and certain provincial politicians such as those in BC and Quebec as well as the Biden administration in the US who in his first day as President, cancelled the Keystone pipeline. Canada also doesn’t have an LNG export terminal yet built, meaning gas is for Canadian consumption only or sold to the US via pipelines far below market prices.  US buyers convert it to LNG for sale to European and Asian countries at much higher prices. Canada also imports oil and gas for our eastern provinces as the one and only LNG terminal in Canada operates for import purposes only.  Canada’s eastern oil refineries use mainly imported oil including a small amount from Norway with the highest imports from Saudi Arabia.

Due to Canada’s almost complete lack of pipelines to ports on both its Atlantic and Pacific shorelines we were, and still are, unable to achieve the benefits current world prices for both oil and natural gas could provide! We could have assisted European and Asian countries in obtaining those energy supplies if we had those pipelines but all except one of those planned were cancelled by the Trudeau government.

A recent editorial in the Sun newspaper chain referencing the lack of Canadian pipelines stated; “Estimates are this costs the Canadian economy $15 billion annually in discounted oil prices and $9 billion annually in discounted prices for natural gas.” Collectively the value of those two exports (two of Canada’s top three exports) in 2021 were US$97 billion but they could have been US$24 billion or 25% higher which could have gone a long way to, increasing revenue for oil and gas companies while producing additional taxes to service debt and (slightly) help reduce the Federal deficit. 

Our politicians do this to Canada, a country 30 times larger than Norway, and watch them generate huge benefits from fossil fuels allowing them to reduce their debt while increasing benefits for their citizens while our leaders harpoon our economy!

The question is; why is our Federal Government under leadership of Justin Trudeau and his minions so intent on destroying the Canadian economy by pushing the “net-zero” emissions agenda?  Canada represents 1.6% of global emissions which China and India will replace in a couple of months.

Batteries + Industrial Wind Turbines or How to Increase Ratepayer Bills

The global push on coupling “battery storage” with wind generation to achieve “zero-emissions” appears to be a ruse to increase revenue for IWT owners while upping electricity bills for ratepayers. 

Evidence of the foregoing was obvious when Brookfield Renewable, via their subsidiary, Evolugen, disclosed they are trying to get Ontario’s Ministry of Energy to allow them to build the 161 MW Timberwolf Battery Storage System next to their existing 189 MW Prince Wind Farm.

The following will hopefully explain how Brookfield are doubling down to raise revenues at the expense of us ratepayers! Reviewing IESO (Independent Electricity System of Ontario) data for August 22nd provides a brief overview on how the above will be accomplished.

IESO data on generation for the first seven (7) hours of August 16, 2022 disclosed Ontario’s IWT generated 6,961 MWh which would have earned IWT owners $939,735 at the contracted price of $135/MWh.

If one examines the market price (HOEP) over those same hours the average price IESO sold surplus power into the market was $30.44/MWh suggesting the 6,971 MWh costing ratepayers $939,735 may have generated $211,893 from their sale; a net-cost to ratepayers of $727,842 for surplus generation.

If the battery storage owners purchased the above 6,971 MWh at the market price over those seven hours ($211,893) and sold it back over the next 10 hours as Ontario’s demand climbed and the HOEP price averaged $116.93/MWh they could have generated $783,314.  Had the latter occurred those 6,961 MWh in the seven hours would cost ratepayers of $1,511,156 ($939,735-$211,893+$783,314) ie; $216.77/MWh or 21.7 cents/kWh.

It is worth pointing out over the balance of the day (the 17 hours remaining) those IWT generated a total of 6,699 MWh or an average of only 8% of their capacity (another $904,365 cost) but in the first seven hours (when they were unneeded) they operated at 20.3% of their capacity!

IWT perform poorly in the warm summer months but normally generate at a much higher level in the Spring and Fall when demand is much lower so the opportunity to double-down on generating a greater return by battery storage during those seasons would surely drive-up costs for ratepayers. 

The other issue associated with the costs rising is our natural gas plants would be confined to less generation.  Many of those natural gas plant contracts guarantee them their capital costs at the rate of $10K per month per MW of capacity and when operating; they charge for the price of gas used and a small additional cost per kWh.  That $10K per MW of capacity will continue but ratepayers will forego the cheap cost of what they would normally produce offsetting the failure of wind and solar to power up for high demand. Those gas plants would however still be needed as battery storage at this stage; is only available for a maximum of four (4) hours whereas gas plants can ramp up and down at any time.

We ratepayers should hope the politicians and bureaucrats responsible for managing the electricity system in the province recognize the real reason for the Bloomfields of the world pushing battery storage to augment their revenue from their wind and solar farms.

Further enrich the rich while harming the poor and middle class!

Eco-Warriors Bubble Up Again

The Narwhal is pushing pumped storage on behalf of Northland Power and dear old Jack Gibbons of the OCAA (Ontario Clean Air Alliance) is excited.  They are also excited about battery storage.

I took a run at the Northland plans back on November 18, 2013 and didn’t like what it was suggesting at that time.  I wouldn’t think things have changed much except for the increasing capital costs which suggest it would be even worse now than it looked like almost nine years ago.

Did Anyone Notice Wind Wimped Out Again

Yesterday, July 13, 2022, was one of those; not so hot summer days in most of Ontario so according to IESO (Independent Electricity System of Ontario) peak demand at hour 16 only reached 18,135 MW during a five (5) minute interval.  At that hour those IWT (industrial wind turbines) with a capacity of 4,900 MW were contributing 108 MW or 2.2% of their capacity and 0.6% of demand. Had they been absent they wouldn’t have been missed!

The two generation sources the OCAA (Ontario Clean Air Alliance) insist the government shut down, ie:  Nuclear, generated 9,430 MW and Natural Gas plants generated 4,093 MW at that hour.  Had the latter two generation sources not been operating at that or any other hour Ontario would have experienced wide-spread BLACKOUTS with a negative effect on businesses and our daily activities.

Once again at hour nine (9) as daily demand was increasing on a regular work day, those IWT were generating 36 MW which was probably less than they were using just to keep their lights blinking! 

The foregoing unreliability and intermittency of IWT is not an occurrence for Ontario only as it has been demonstrated around the world where they have been endorsed and promoted by politicians.  On their own, without other generation sources, such as natural gas or coal fired generation backing them up, most of the developed world would find ourselves back in the dark ages.

It seems truly unbelievable the push to go fully “fossil fuel free” has gained so much momentum around the world collectively as one example: the push for EV (electric vehicles) to replace ICE (internal combustion engines) is occurring. 

Plugging those EV in to recharge them without fossil fuels generating electricity is nothing more than a pipedream by the eco-warriors and their obedient and obtuse politicians as recently noted.     

The EV transition in the eyes of the Beholden Part 1

A Bloomberg News author titled his recent article: Tipping point: U.S. crosses mass-adoption threshold for EVs of 5% of new car sales and went on noting; “Most successful new technologies — electricity, televisions, mobile phones, the internet, even LED lightbulbs — follow an S-shaped adoption curve. Sales move at a crawl in the early-adopter phase, then surprisingly quickly once things go mainstream.” The author’s prior sentence strongly suggested electric vehicles (EV) are a new technology but had the author bothered to simply Google search, “when was the first electric car invented” he would have discovered the date was around 1832 or about 190 years ago. There was no mention in the article about government grants handed out to EV purchasers for the cars or charging stations. The author obviously felt it was simply the “new technology” those buyers were endorsing to create that “S-shaped adoption curve” and not the taxpayer dollars supporting their sales.  Blinkers were fully on!

Another article from last week in the FP suggested EV sales in Canada in the first quarter of 2022 accounted for 8.2 % of new vehicle registrations and had the following chart to demonstrate that! 

What the foregoing article didn’t say was all light vehicle sales in Canada in the first quarter of 2021 had dropped by 12.3% to only 337,039 according to Automotive News meaning EV sales were about 27,600.

Cost to Taxpayer

The chart indicates the bulk of those sales were in the two provinces who provide grants BC (up to $3K) and Quebec (up to $7K) to EV purchasers. Most provinces also provide grants for home charging stations. In Ontario taxpayers have also joined with the Federal Government’s taxpayers providing Ford, GM and the Chrysler and Dodge factories in Brampton and Windsor collectively with over $2 billion in grants to manufacture EV in the province.

Another interesting and related issue was a video interview on June 29, 2022 by Financial Post’s Larysa Harapyn of Brian Kingston of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association in which he stated Canada would need 1.6 million public charges for the EV transition. Ontario has already provided funding for a number of charging stations as well as offering municipalities grants to assist them where and when needed but so far it’s only (term used lightly) $91 million. It is hard to determine the individual costs of those 1.6 million charging stations but looking at British Columbia the province is offering funding starting at “$20,000 per <50 kW DCFC installation, and ranges up to $80,000 per >100 kW charge port. These rebates can cover up to 50% of total project costs, including purchasing, planning, and installation costs.”  What that suggests is at the low end (assuming the price is similar in all provinces) those 1.6 million charging stations may cost taxpayers well over $32 billion dollars.  Totally mind blowing!

As if to underscore the uneconomical attributes associated with EV, another recent announcement by the Ontario Provincial Government and the Federal Government suggests the taxpayers of Ontario and the rest of Canada are a bottomless pit of funding.  The Press Release was headlined: “Umicore to build industrial scale battery materials manufacturing plant in Loyalist Township, first of its kind in North America” and stated: “Umicore plans to make a $1.5 billion investment to build a first of its kind industrial scale cathode and precursor materials manufacturing plant, in eastern Ontario.”  The release naturally rambles on about the benefits and only casually mentions what Mathias Miedreich, CEO of Umicore is quoted stating: “Moreover, we are most grateful to the Canadian and Ontario governments for their support and for their readiness to co-fund this planned project. The facility will help Canada and Umicore in their shared objective of achieving a carbon-neutral battery supply chain.” There is no mention of what the Canadian and Ontario taxpayers will be contributing but we should expect it will be at least a few hundred million.

Our Federal and Provincial Governments are both onside with their concept of satisfying the Canadian COP-26 commitments to eliminate fossil fuel use to achieve their net-zero targets. On the other hand, they seem immune to the fact many of the tax dollars they are using come from the Canadian oil and natural gas sector and taxes applied to us users of oil and gas. Their unprecedented spending and debt creation simply amlifies the negative effect on our economy causing energy poverty and job losses!

Stay tuned for Part 2 in this short series as we explore some of the issues that may make all of the spending highlighted above simply a waste of our tax dollars. 

The bad news could well be: Canezuela is just around the corner!

Weird Happenings as Eco-warriors keep pushing the envelope on climate-change

The eco-warriors around the world have amped up their push for the “net-zero” target recently as demand for those damn “fossil fuels” keeps rising along with their price! It seems apparent, without oil, coal or natural gas mankind will suffer immensely but that’s not stopping the push to get us all to abandon them.  The eco-warriors and their puppet politicians believe we can count on unreliable and intermittent production of energy from wind and solar; stored in batteries at a cost of trillions of dollars globally.  The following are just a few of the weird happenings pushed by the eco-warriors and endorsed by elected politicians we have stupidly voted for in the developed world!

India and China ramp up coal production

While the developed world is doing what our politicians tell us to do to ween us off of fossil fuels, India and China have both announced they are collectively ramping up coal production by 700M tons (300M by China and 400M tons by India) per year which is more than total US output.  In the latter case even though the U.S. is also ramping up their coal production slightly it will only amount to a total of 598.3 million st, (short tons) according to the EIA projections for 2022!  Surely India and China will be castigated by the eco-warriors for ignoring them and the politicians from the developed world!  They will then backtrack on their plans to ramp up their coal production or perhaps they won’t, as they are more focused on improving the livelihood of their citizens?

Prince Charles’ prize backs face mask that cuts methane emissions from cow burps

Back in January 2021 Prince Charles launched the Terra Carta (named after the Magna Carta) whose purpose was defined as; “provides a roadmap to 2030 for businesses to move towards an ambitious and sustainable future; one that will harness the power of Nature”.  He sought pledges from the business community of $10 billion by 2022 and recently handed out the prize of “£50,000” for the inaugural winner of the Terra Carta Design Lab competition. The winning design was a face mask for cows to cut methane emissions from cow burps!  Interestingly enough, if one researches “cow burps” versus “cow farts” an article in Forbes in 2017 suggests those cow farts are worse than cow burps due to the fact that manure is not used much for fertilizer as in the past when it was spread rather then stored in open pits.

Perhaps the time has come for Prince Charles to suggest another competition to capture the methane from those “cow farts” Surely that will be an interesting design and worth that £50,000 prize or more or would it simply be more “Bull Shit”!

New Zealand’s plan to tax cow and sheep burps

A very recent article appearing in the BBC news suggests New Zealand’s astute politicians have also focused on not only cow burps but also sheep burps!  As a result of their observations, they plan to levy a tax on farmers for emissions from those sheep and cows. New Zealand reputedly host 10 million cattle and 26 million sheep grossly outnumbering their 5 million people. At the same time as they plan on levying the tax; New Zealand is involved in the launch of a trade dispute under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  The trade dispute is against Canada and associated with our “supply management system” which protects our dairy farmers from cheaper imports.  So, should New Zealand’s “burp tax” become law it will presumably raise the price of their dairy products so one wonders will those increased prices result in their products becoming uncompetitive with the same products from our dairy farmers?  It appears that New Zealand’s politicians are trying to shoot themselves in the foot if they implement the tax making their diary products priced higher. Perhaps they are secretly hoping Canada will impose similar “burp taxes” or under the trade dispute will insist Canada impose the same tax!

As a matter of interest, the Chinese City of Shanghai emits two and a half times more emissions (200MT) than the whole country of New Zealand does even with all those cattle and sheep.   

Take your pick: Clean Energy Credits, Carbon Credits, Carbon Offsets, Voluntary Environmental Credits or Renewable Energy Credits

If you run a business these days you are forced to comply with the wishes of the politicians elected to run the country. Those politicians attended COP-26 and signed up to reduce those invisible emissions we have been told for well over 50 years will surely decimate the planet! The choices you make will drive up your costs but you are told you must comply regardless of what China, India or Russia do.  To reduce those emissions, you will pick one of the listed “credits” or “offsets” in the captioned headline and hope the cost(s) can be passed on in pricing your products or absorbed by increasing your efficiency. Either is a choice impacting your business and those you employ. Bearing in mind the choice you make it is interesting to note not only are the costs and choices varied but many selling them have been called out as false.  

One recent report out of Concordia University is critical of the fact that companies will purchase REC (renewable energy credits) to offset their emissions but are using electricity generated by fossil fuels.  Other reports have criticized purchases of “carbon credits” or “carbon offsets” which as one example found Nature Conservancy reputedly selling unendangered tree offsets.

Now here in Ontario back in January our Minister of Energy Todd Smith suddenly recognized Ontario’s electricity generation is very clean with only about 6% of it creating emissions. As a result he issued a press release suggesting Ontario may be heading to creation of a “Clean Energy Registry” that will make the province attractive for investments. Companies will be able to purchase those CEC from our renewable generators and the money will “reputedly” be returned to Ontario’s ratepayers to reduce electricity costs.

The foregoing looks to be the epitome of the “Circular Economy” and perhaps is what PM Justin Trudeau had in mind when he flew to California and signed the “Canada-California Climate Action and Nature Protection Partnership” on June 9,2022.

Apparently, it’s OK for Trudeau and others in his entourage to create a huge carbon footprint while the rest of us are told to reduce ours!  Seems just a little weird!

Allianz Insurance Suffers a Catastrophic Loss Probably Caused by Electric Vehicles!   Isn’t that Ironic?

An article in the British newspaper, “EXPRESS” in the May 11th edition shouted out: “The heightened appeal for electric cars may be causing a wave of cargo ship fires because they are not designed to carry lithium batteries safely. The new report, from Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty, said that bigger vessels carrying as many as 8,000 vehicles at a time concentrate the risk.”

The above commentary came about due to the potential insurance losses suffered from the sinking of the Felicity Ace in the Atlantic Ocean which happened to be carrying 4,000 Volkswagen vehicles including; Porsches and luxury Bentley vehicles and many were electric vehicles. An article on February 22, 2022 noted “a spokesperson for the salvage crew working on the burning cargo ship, who confirmed that “part of the fire is the batteries [in electric vehicles on board] that are still burning.” The paper said that according to Portuguese navy officials and salvage workers who have seen a cargo manifest, “it is clear that many of the cars on board are electric vehicles.” The fire, which started on Wednesday, has continued to burn into the weekend.

Allianz with their head office in Germany is recognized as # 1. of the top 10 global insurers ranked by 2019 non-banking assets and presumably took a significant hit as the value of the cargo on the Felicity Ace, now sunk, has been estimated at over $500 million.

Interestingly enough; if the loss of the ship and its cargo are eventually blamed on EV batteries, one should wonder; will Allianz drop their membership in the UN Net-Zero Insurance Alliance

The history of Allianz and perhaps their belief in “Energiewende”under Angela Merkel, former Chancellor of Germany, seemed to convince the German population of the ability to denounce the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy and instead depend on renewable energy for their needs.  Evidentially that included transformation of the transportation sector and Allianz jumped on board.  They aggressively have promoted EV for over a decade as a simple search on their website determines.  As an example, in 2011 Allianz was a co-sponsor of an EV race consisting of two, three and four-wheelers! Their related press release stated: “We believe in the future of electric-powered cars, which will allow us to be mobile in a sustainable, emission-free and low-noise fashion.”  Anyone living near wind turbines (also supported by Allianz to achieve “net-zero”) to recharge those EV might not be happy to note how Allianz ignored noise emissions from wind turbines and their reputed “clean generation”! 

As it turned out Energiewende has turned out to be a very negative issue for Germany particularly with the ongoing Ukraine/Russian war impacting Germany’s need for natural gas resulting in them firing up many of their mothballed coal plants.  Net-Zero is starting to look like a nightmare not a dream!

So, one must wonder how Allianz’s worldwide offices and their executives are taking all this negative news affecting their support and push for “net-zero” and having to deal with an insurance claim that may well top $500 million appearing to have been caused by EV?

Net-Zero is starting to look like a nightmare not a dream now and as Alanis Morissette’s song title enunciated; “Isn’t that ironic”!

Crazy stuff from Polls, Surveys and Politicians

Youthful “Climate Anxiety’

An article from April 26, 2022 on CTV news reported on a CAMH (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health) survey on Ontario youth and labelled it “depressing”! The survey was about how the “Covid-19 pandemic” coupled with “eco-anxiety” had affected youth and the author of the article (Abby Neufeld) got the views expressed from a 17-year-old.  Leaving aside the section on the pandemic’s affect the shocking thing was how he responded to the question about climate-anxiety stating: “The first time it ever really hit home for me was in Grade 2 – we watched this informative video explaining the earth was sick,” he recalled, adding that he remembers feeling a sense of helplessness, unable to process what could be done.” One should assume when he was in grade two (2), he would have been seven (7) years old! As a parent one should ask why the local school board is allowing teachers to show videos that will obviously create anxieties in that age group? The CAMH survey indicated 24% of youth were “worried” about “climate change” and 50% were “depressed about the future”!

US Gallup Poll

As a counter to the CAMH survey a recent US Gallup Poll asked the question “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?” and 35% picked “Economic Problems” as their top concern.  A miserly 2% picked “Environment/Pollution/Climate change” as the “most important problem” facing the country! Perhaps the US education system doesn’t allow the showing of those scary “climate change” videos to seven (7) year old’s in Grade two (2)?

Ontarians Rank “Tackling Climate Change” Seventh

Global News recently commissioned IPSOS to poll Ontarians to determine their top three priorities before the budget was to be presented in Parliament on April 28, 2022. Interestingly, “Tackling Climate Change” ranked seventh just ahead of “Lower Energy Costs” but behind four other economic issues including; “Lower Taxes”, “help with day-to-day needs (like groceries and gas)”, “help to make housing more affordable” and “Economy and Jobs”.   With all those economic issues front and center one should wonder; why are our politicians continually supporting the elimination of fossil fuels and targeting that COP-26 “net-zero” pie in the sky target? It now appears the Covid-19 pandemic coupled with Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine have enlightened voters to real issues affecting their daily lives as they relegate the eco-warrior cries about “climate change” well down their list of concerns!

43% of Britons will struggle to pay their energy bills

An April 25, 2022, article in the Financial Post provided the results of an Opinions and Lifestyle Survey from the Office for National Statistics in the UK indicating energy poverty has affected many households.  The findings, collected from March 16th to March 22nd stated 43% of the UK’s household’s will struggle to pay their energy bills and 23% said it was difficult to pay their usual household bills.  The latter was up from 17% in November 2021. The increase obviously is in respect to the hit UK consumers have taken as electricity and natural gas prices have pushed up inflation to a 30 year high similar to what our inflation rates have climbed here in Canada.

An overwhelming majority of Quebecers, and all Canadians, want to supply Europe with energy

The media release of April 26, 2022 from the Montreal Economic Institute on April 26, 2022 noted they had engaged Ipsos to conduct a poll to determine how Canadians felt about exporting “our vast energy resources to European countries” to replace the Russian supply. Approximately 72% were in support and only 17% were opposed and that polling didn’t differentiate much with 65% of Quebecers also supportive. Another surprising result of the poll was the following from the media release: “While the provincial government has just adopted a bill aiming to put an end to all hydrocarbon development projects in Quebec, 59% of the population of the province is in favour of developing Quebec’s oil and gas potential in order to export the resources to Europe. Moreover, 53% of Quebecers want to revive the GNL Québec project in order to export liquefied natural gas to Europe, while only 29% are opposed.” 

The foregoing flies in the face of both the ruling Federal and Quebec politicians who continue to push for the complete elimination of fossil fuels. It appears however, the politicians plan to ignore what those who elected them, see as “sane policies” to actually protect the Canadian economy and our well-being!

New Federal Regulation makes new homes costlier

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s budget launched April 7, 2022 promised to spend billions of tax dollars (north of $70 billion) aimed at making new homes affordable. Considering the budgeted spending one wonders WHY the same government just five (5) days before the budget was presented would propose a regulation making new homes costlier?

The primary objective of the new regulation(s) is to; “Reduce energy consumption and resulting GHG emissions associated with products used in homes, contribute to Canada’s commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, reduce the load on the electricity system, and help Canadians save money on their energy bills.” The foregoing will reputedly reduce emissions by 1.2 megatons or 0.17% of Canada’s 2020 emissions and it applies to all appliances utilizing electricity in the house including; your furnace, air conditioner, etc. along with all other major appliances. We should be confident China or India will have no trouble increasing their emissions by that much in less than a week.

Shortly after the budget was presented the New York Post had an article that should prove shocking to all Canadians as it stated: “As of February, the Canadian Real Estate Association reported that the average price of a Canadian home stood at 816,720 Canadian dollars, or $646,809 — over nine times the average household income. In contrast, the US has seen slightly lower price increases, with home prices rising 27% over the same period, Fortune previously reported. In America, the median home price last month stood at $375,000, an all-time high and a 15% rise from a year prior.” That suggests the cost of the average home in Canada is almost double the cost in the US and is truly shocking.

One should wonder why the current government continues their agenda and appears intent on driving up our cost of living via inflationary regulations such as this?  Is it because the Trudeau led government is sold on the WEF’s (World Economic Forum) concept that we Canadians “will own nothing but be happy”?  We need to push back for the sake of all Canadians and our children.

Let’s have a Canada wide poll

Perhaps the time has come for a poll or survey that allows all Canadians to show our politicians what the U.S. Gallup Poll is telling the U.S. elected leaders!