I am delighted and excited that Michelle Stirling of Friends of Science liked my recent post about the Strathmere Group and decided to use the material to create a video going through the details of the post with some very interesting explanations and also spent time tying it into other reports.
It’s definitely worth a watch (personal prejudice aside) and you can find it here:
(136) The Strathmere Group has been Gobbling Up Our Tax Dollars – YouTube
As many know should you fly a propellor driven aircraft you need a fossil fuel engine to make that propellor spin and keep you flying! That analogy also applies to using wind to create electricity utilizing those IWT (industrial wind turbines). If the wind isn’t blowing, we need either fossil fuel generation, hydroelectricity (water flowing through turbines) or nuclear generation to keep the lights on! Nuclear and most of hydroelectric generation are considered baseload power as is evident on an hourly, daily and annual basis whereas some hydro and natural gas generators stand at the ready to ramp UP or ramp DOWN. In years past that ability allowed it to respond to the hourly electricity demand throughout the day but since the addition of wind and solar generation it is also required to be at the ready for times when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.
Evidence of the foregoing is obvious from the following screenshot from IESO late on May 6th, 2023, for the six days starting April 30, 2023, up to hour 20 on the 6th! The green (sprinkled with a little yellow) depicts the generation from wind with the occasional spot of yellow being solar generation.
As the expression goes; “a picture is worth a thousand words” and the foregoing does that as wind generation was quite in evidence during the first three May days but suddenly almost disappeared as we traversed into the 4th and 5th of May. Thankfully our natural gas plants were available to fill in for the missing wind and solar generation and the Spring Freshet supplied water for our rammable hydroelectric generation sources.
What wind and solar generation do is basically layer additional costs on to what we pay for electricity in the province with their first to the grid rights. Ontario’s ratepayers/taxpayers are therefore forced to pickup approximately $6.5 billion of annual costs associated with their; “on again, off again” generation to pretend we are actually having a positive effect on reducing emissions.
Highly unlikely emissions have been reduced considering the emissions generated by the mining and manufacturing processes required for those IWT and solar panels! Ah, but our politicians here in Canada know those emissions were created in another country so will blatantly ignore that latter fact!
As Walter Scott is credited with saying hundreds of years ago; “O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!“
As pointed out in a series of eleven articles starting back in September 2020 and concluding in September 2021 the “Strathmere Group”, consisting of ten (10) charities and two (2) not-for-profit entities, were out to save the world from “climate change”!
The history of the group and their partnership with each other as well as 21 U.S. environmental groups was inspired by none other then Jerry DeMarco who is at present the Federal, Environmental Commissioner, in the Auditor General’s office. A paper written by DeMarco stated, “environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) must overcome the “silos” isolating them from one another in order to “think and act like a movement”.
Needless to say, with some minor shuffles in the “Strathmere Group” they certainly overcame the “silo” and now benefit substantially with our tax dollars while we taxpayers suffer the consequences of their agenda which has been totally endorsed by the current minority Federal Liberal Government and supported by the NDP.
The Strathmere Group and their leaders in 2009 were:
Rick Bates, Executive Director, Canadian Wildlife Federation, Gerald Butts, President and CEO, WWF-Canada, Bruce Cox, Executive Director, Greenpeace Canada, Stephen Hazell, Executive Director, Sierra Club Canada, Eric Hebert-Daly, National Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Bob Oliver, Executive Director, Pollution Probe, Devon Page, Executive Director, Ecojustice, Marlo Raynolds, Executive Director, Pembina Institute, Sidney Ribaux, Executive Director, Equiterre, Peter Robinson, President, David Suzuki Foundation, Graham Saul, Executive Director, Climate Action Network Canada and Rick Smith, Executive Director, Environmental Defence Canada.
The reader will notice three names have been highlighted above who are; Gerald Butts, Malo Raynolds and Rick Smith and most readers will instantly recognize why! Those three have either played significant roles in executing their beliefs or continue in positions influencing politicians in both the Federal and Provincial governments. Butts will be remembered as being Trudeau’s right-hand man and also responsible for the Green Energy Act pushing renewable energy in Ontario and doubling electricity bills. Raynolds should be regarded as primarily responsible for the Strathmere Group’s formation and mandate. Raynolds was also a losing Liberal candidate in the 2015 Federal election but despite that became Chief of Staff in 2015 under Catherine McKenna when she was Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Rick Smith moved on from President of Environmental Defence to become President of the Canadian Climate Institute created by the Trudeau government with $20 million of our tax dollars to push the “net-zero” agenda.
Interestingly Raynolds now is the “Executive in Residence” at Arc Financial Corp. whose website states: “ARC is focused on investing in conventional oil and gas and in sustainable energy industries. Located in Calgary, the heart of the Canadian energy sector, ARC has access to attractive, competitive opportunities and a pool of talented and experienced entrepreneurs.“ It appears Raynolds has been hired to presumably get ARC to exit the oil and gas sector and move their $6 billion portfolio into those wind, solar and hydrogen renewable developments that he was pushing when Chief of Staff in his former position which presumably included doling out government grants! Surely someone dedicated to the philosophy he visualized when creating the Strathmere Group will continue his life’s mission in his new job!
Our Tax Dollars going to the Strathmere Group members:
As it has been well over two years since the series of articles about the Strathmere Group, it’s worth looking back over the past five (5) years to see if our tax dollars have found their way into the pockets of the ten (10) charities.
While there were twelve members in the group the “charitable status excludes Greenpeace and the Climate Action Network! The latter is simply an association of ENGO (environmental non-government organizations) whereas Greenpeace lost or gave up their charitable status when being investigated by the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency). The investigation also was reviewing others in the Strathmere Group including; the David Suzuki Foundation, Pembina Foundation, Environmental Defence and Equiterre whose co-founder was reputedly none other than our current Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault. When the Justin Trudeau Liberal led party won the majority in 2015 one of the early things that happened was the investigation suddenly disappeared.
Accordingly, with the above in mind and the stature of some of those signatures on the Strathmere declaration having risen to places of influence within the bureaucracy of the Federal Government, a review of the charity filings seemed logical. A look over the past five years of CRA charitable filings was therefore executed along with a review of the Grants and Contributions and the Federal Contracts websites.
What was Discovered:
CRA Filings:
1(a). According to the five years of CRA filings by the ten charities they reported having received $51,440,000 from the Federal Government, $14,985,000 from provincial governments and $677,000 from municipal governments.
1(b). Those ten charities over the five years have also received $81,723,000 from other Canadian charities plus another $45,208,000 from Foreign parties with a portion of those donations also receiving tax receipts.
1(c). Collectively the ten charities received tax-receipted donations of $253,859,000 but two of the ten charities (World Wildlife Fund and Canadian Wildlife Foundation) received 60% ($152,018,000) of the foregoing with the other eight charities receiving the remaining 40%. Those donations saved the contributors approximately $190.4 million in taxes (75% of contributions) meaning the Federal government deficit increased with absolutely no benefit to ordinary Canadian citizens via improvements to the health care system, reducing poverty, etc. etc.
2. Federal Grants and Contracts:
Reviewing the Federal Grants and Contributions website those ten (10) charities have been granted $48,229.000 over the past five (5) years and via the Contracts website were awarded Federal Contacts of $1,826,000.
Summary:
Looking at just the effect on tax revenues, the ten charities comprising the Strathmere Group basically were responsible for consuming $257.6 million* of our potential and actual tax dollars over those five years. Those ten ENGO are but a small portion of the active ENGO of whom most are charities and receive tax dollars either directly via grants or benefit from the tax deduction used by their contributors. The Climate Action Network (a Strathmere Group member) has almost 150 members including such well known names as CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees).
Other organizations such as the Canadian Environmental Network also have members and regional groups by provinces but the website GoodWork.ca goes well beyond the CAN or CEN by linking to various provincial organizations as well as Green Business & Environment Industry Associations. We should be confident that the hundreds of ENGO and renewable energy companies spread across the country are enjoying the benefits provided by all of the individuals and businesses whose tax dollars they receive.
The Strathmere Group merely highlights the waste of our tax dollars to achieve the “net-zero” target of emissions for Canada when we represent only 1.5% of global emissions.
Destroying Canada’s economic wellbeing will not change the temperature!
*Forgone taxes $190.4 million plus Federal Grants of $51.4 million plus Provincial Grants of $15 million plus $700K of Municipal Grants = $257.6 million
Mere days ago a post titled “Politicians Don’t Seem to Believe “money doesn’t grow on trees” included information about the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology (SDTC) noting it had received over $1.9 billion in Federal Government Grants.
As it turned out the data contained in the Federal, Grants and Contributions website had apparently not been updated as I discovered when searching under another name. What was found in that search was the following notice and it popped up for two days.
“Sorry, we are down for maintenance / We are sorry, but this site is down for maintenance.”
The “maintenance” seems to have concluded so another search of the site for “Grants and Contributions” was made for: “Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology” (SDTC) and it disclosed an additional $1,239,441,646 had been added bringing the total grants handed out to them to over $3.1 billion ($3,153,900,935)! All of the grants (added or altered?) carried dates after the Liberal Party of Canada under PM Justin Trudeau had been elected. The grants all noted the funds were to support action related to “climate change” or one of its derivatives!
So the selected bureaucrats involved in operating SDTC will surely be kept busy now doing their best to allocate the additional funds slated and not yet allocated (about $1.7 billion) based on their last annual report. Surely some of that will save us from their perceived apocalypse of “climate change”.
It sure appears the Liberal Party of Canada under Justin Trudeau are convinced money does indeed grow on trees and we taxpayers are the trees so are obligated to “drink the kool-aid” until we vote them out!
Following is the text from the prior article related to SDTC:
“Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology now called Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC)**
One should wonder, why the name change since it’s creation in 2001 through a Special Act of Parliament when Jean Chrétien was the Prime Minister? Perhaps it was to suggest it was now an entity freed from political influence despite its dependence on tax dollars as its funding supports; its staff and management in their efforts to re-disperse what remains of the grants. In the latter case the funding granted to them since Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister has totalled over $1.9 billion ($1,914,459,289).
So, the question becomes; what have they done with those $1.9 billion of grants? There is a pile of information in their annual report for the year ended March 31, 2022 suggesting they have awarded “contributions of $1,450 million, of which $1,171 million has been disbursed since inception.“ When they make announcements about their chosen investments they issue press releases and as an example one of their recent ones from February 17, 2023 stated; “an investment of $68.2million toward 17 innovative Canadian companies.“ The release included a statement from François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry:
“We congratulate all the cleantech entrepreneurs who are turning vision into reality with help from SDTC investments. The Government of Canada stands shoulder to shoulder with these groundbreaking companies as they drive innovation, make their mark as international leaders in clean technology and propel us to a cleaner Canada and a net-zero carbon emissions world.“
What is very unclear about SDTC is each announcement about their handouts claim; they are “an investment” but SDTC’s financial statements show NO investments related to the “dollars” handed out. That seems strange as private investors having been sold on a concept to invest, would require either payback of the funds with interest, or allocation of share purchases at a negotiated price in the company, should it advance to the point where it could become publicly listed on a stock exchange. What that infers is that the money handed out is simply tax dollars that may or may not create a successful company with no future benefit to us taxpayers who provided the funding to create that success!”
Politicians Don’t Seem to Believe “money doesn’t grow on trees”
The foregoing expression is one many of us heard from our parents when we were young and went shopping with them and when in the store, asked them to buy something we wanted. Looking at recent happenings here in Canada it appears our elected politicians were successful during their early years getting whatever they asked for from their parents based on how they are now, literally, throwing our tax dollars away as long as you utter the words embodying anything associated with “climate change” or “net-zero”!
Curiosity piqued, a visit to the Federal Government’s “Grants and Contributions” website led to a search using words connected with the push to reach “net-zero” without looking for a specific beneficiary of the Grant(s). The chart* below, indicates search terms used and how many hits, ie, grants were generated for each word.
No doubt there is some duplication as some grants may include a few of those “chart” words, such as climate change, emissions and net-zero, etc. Despite the potential duplication the money handed out to save Canada from “climate change” is billions and billions of our tax dollars. They do the foregoing while neglecting to improve basic things like, health care, education, criminal law, our military, energy needs, etc. etc. where our tax dollars should rightly be directed.
The recent announcement by the Federal and Provincial governments and the $13.5 billion tax dollars (it will cost much more then that) they are gifting to VW to build a battery plant in Ontario was jointly made to sound like a wonderful gift and create 3,000 jobs. Not included in the $13.5 billion were estimates of the infrastructure costs it will require which will, again, be our tax dollars. As it signals; it is a prime example of exactly how our monies are wasted on anything associated with the reputed catastrophic evidence associated with the push to reduce our emissions to save the world.
Just to emphasize how far we have descended into this trench with the push for net-zero it is interesting to look at just one of the Federal Government’s “not-for-profit” creations!
Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology now called Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC)**
One should wonder, why the name change since it’s creation in 2001 through a Special Act of Parliament when Jean Chrétien was the Prime Minister? Perhaps it was to suggest it was now an entity freed from political influence despite its dependence on tax dollars as its funding supports; its staff and management in their efforts to re-disperse what remains of the grants. In the latter case the funding granted to them since Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister has totalled over $1.9 billion ($1,914,459,289).
So, the question becomes; what have they done with those $1.9 billion of grants? There is a pile of information in their annual report for the year ended March 31, 2022 suggesting they have awarded “contributions of $1,450 million, of which $1,171 million has been disbursed since inception.“ When they make announcements about their chosen investments they issue press releases and as an example one of their recent ones from February 17, 2023 stated; “an investment of $68.2million toward 17 innovative Canadian companies.“ The release included a statement from François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry:
“We congratulate all the cleantech entrepreneurs who are turning vision into reality with help from SDTC investments. The Government of Canada stands shoulder to shoulder with these groundbreaking companies as they drive innovation, make their mark as international leaders in clean technology and propel us to a cleaner Canada and a net-zero carbon emissions world.“
What is very unclear about SDTC is each announcement about their handouts claim; they are “an investment” but SDTC’s financial statements show NO investments related to the “dollars” handed out. That seems strange as private investors having been sold on a concept to invest, would require either payback of the funds with interest, or allocation of share purchases at a negotiated price in the company, should it advance to the point where it could become publicly listed on a stock exchange. What that infers is that the money handed out is simply tax dollars that may or may not create a successful company with no future benefit to us taxpayers who provided the funding to create that success!
Another example of the foregoing becomes obvious in a Federal Government announcement back on July 31, 2021 in a Press Release when they handed $400 million dollars to “ArcelorMittal Dofasco” for “adoption of innovative low-carbon technology “. The release stated: “Today, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, together with the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the Honourable Filomena Tassi, Minister of Labour, announced a federal investment of $400 million in ArcelorMittal Dofasco G.P., Canada’s largest producer of flat-rolled steel. This investment will support a $1.765-billion project to convert the steel production process and phase out coal-fired steelmaking at its facilities in Hamilton, Ontario.“ It seems clear this “investment” was a grant meaning there is no anticipated return to us taxpayers as Dofasco will simply use the funds to covert the steel process “toward Canada’s achieving its climate goals, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions“.
While the above highlights only two examples of the handouts of our politicians it clearly demonstrates their use of inappropriate nouns when passing out tax dollars. Handing out our hard-earned taxes when associated with their objectives of a net-zero economy should not be defined as investments!
They are of the bent who obviously appear to believe that “money does indeed grow on trees”!
*Grant Search Chart
| **SDTC Spider Web (design your own) |
Reducing Farm Yields
A short video interview with Canadian farmers attending the Ottawa Valley Farm Show posted on the Farmers Forum website, associated with Trudeau’s announcement asking farmers to “voluntarily” reduce their use of fertilizers, went over like a lead balloon! The farmers interviewed noted in addition to the cost of fertilizer increasing in price by a factor of two to three year over year caused by carbon taxes, etc., etc. ensured farmers were only using what they felt could produce reasonably good yields to provide them with enough income to survive. The cost of fertilizers zoomed up due to the cost of producing and transporting it to them and they expressed concern that “volunteering” to use less would ultimately result in a government mandate similar to what has happened in the Netherlands and cause hardship.
Record Spending by Environmentalists
An article from the US, Capital Research Centre (CRC) a month ago in the first sentence stated: “The greenest thing about Big Green is its mountain of cash“ and went on to note the environmental left poured out U.S.$2.4 billon pushing their agenda! The article went on to state the CRC examined 166 left-leaning charities whose primary focus was on climate change or environmental regulation and in 2019 they raked in almost U.S.$2.7 billion. They spent the latter on their agenda and doled out “$435,311,881 in grants to other, mostly left-leaning nonprofits“. The article also names the top 20 of the 166 they examined and those in the top 20 such as World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation, Greenpeace, etc. amongst the list are familiar names to us here in Canada. If the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) was as good as the US is in disclosure a personal guess would be that Canadian charities with the same objectives as their US peers would generate around 10% (CDN$270 million) of what was generated south of the border. Personal knowledge of those fighting the eco-warriors here in Canada discloses all of them are NFP (not-for-profits) without charitable status. We are severely outgunned by the sanctimonious “Greta” crowd!
IESO Needs More Money
The IESO recently received the blessing of the Ontario Minister of Energy for their 2023-2025 Business Plan which sought increased revenue “of 5.8%, 4.8%, and 5.2% over the three year planning period.“ Needless to say the “plan” pushes the objectives of the Ford led provincial government which echo the McGuinty/Wynne leadership days which drove electricity prices up by well over 100%. As one example the business plan states “Pairing energy storage with wind or solar generation can improve operational efficiency and help meet the province’s emerging electricity needs. For this reason, the integration of hybrid storage/generation resources has been designated a priority project within the IESO’s Enabling Resources initiative“ The obvious fall-out from adding “hybrid storage“, etc, will drive-up energy costs while they forecast increasing demand! The “plan” states they need “to support the significant growth in the industrial, mining and agricultural sectors, as well as major expansion in transportation electrification, which will collectively drive higher electricity demand than Ontario has seen in many years“.
It seems apparent the Province in it’s recently announced budget (Building a Strong Ontario) recognizes “higher demand” will increase budget requirements for a jump in the Electricity Cost-Relief Programs of 9.6% (up $571 Million) from the current year ending March 31, 2023 at $5.946 billion to $6.516 billion for the upcoming year. The other scary item in the budget was the announcement the province would launch a “Clean Energy Credit Registry” suggesting it would boost competitiveness and attract jobs. It is scary as they claim: “A CEC registry provides businesses with a tool to meet these goals and demonstrate that their electricity has been sourced from clean resources, such as hydroelectric, solar, wind, bioenergy and nuclear power. Funds generated through the purchases of CECs could be returned to ratepayers, to help lower electricity costs and support future clean energy generation.” It is hard to understand or believe requiring companies to purchase “Clean Energy Credits” will “boost competitiveness and attract jobs.“ It will simply increase costs and be inflationary!
The UK’s Energy Import Bill in 2022 Jumped by 117%
An article out of the UK “reported that the cost of imports soared from £54bn in 2021 to £117bn last year, breaking the £100bn barrier for the first time.“ The UK government and many of the EU countries have fully endorsed the “net-zero” push and it is impacting them severely so the pushback has expanded as more and more households suffer from “energy poverty”. In the UK an article in the “Conversation” stated: “In October 2021, an estimated 4 million households in the UK were in fuel poverty. But the largest increase in gas and electricity prices ever in April 2022 has pushed a further 2.7 million UK households into fuel poverty, bringing the total number to 6.7 million.“ To put that in perspective; 6.7 million UK households represents 23.8% of all households in the UK and in just six months the number suffering from energy poverty grew from 14.2%. Just over a year ago the UK government imposed a 25% windfall tax on oil and gas producers in the North Sea and it, coupled with a ban from purchasing Russian fossil fuels, has obviously resulted in the substantial increase in energy poverty. Interestingly the OEUK (Offshore Energies UK) calculates “the North Sea still has oil and gas reserves equivalent to 15bn barrels of oil – enough to support the nation’s needs for the three decades needed to build the offshore wind and other low carbon energy systems essential to power the future.“ More proof politicians in the developed world seem to have abandoned their citizens all in the name of saving the planet from the hyperbole of “climate change”!
Banning Plastics
As most Canadians are slowly finding out should they buy anything from a fast-food outlet or go grocery shopping the Canadian Government under Justin Trudeau’s leadership has banned the use of six types of single use plastics which includes straws, plastic bags, stir sticks, etc. We were told by them the ban would improve the environment while delivering economic benefits. The article in the Financial Post a couple of days ago clearly demonstrated the policies invoked by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, will both increase waste and increase costs citing inaccurate claims made by the government in respect to how plastic waste is handled in Canada. Needless to say the inaccurate claims were repeated by the media such as the CBC without any fact checking. The substitutes for the banned single use plastics will not only have “higher climate change” impacts but will also double the amount of waste created. The government’s own study stated only 1% of plastic waste in Canada “were discarded outside of the normal waste stream (i.e., not landfilled, recycled or incinerated)“. So we should wonder; why ban those plastics if the ban increases waste and disposal costs?
Conclusion: The foregoing articles clearly demonstrate how the push to achieve the elusive “net-zero” target continues to have no affect on the climate while it inflates costs and creates energy poverty. As our politicians continue to set policies advocated by the ENGO “Green Inflation” will grow!
Five ENGO* (BLUEGREEN, Ecojustice, Environmental Defence, Equiterre and IISD) recently issued a 28 page proclamation labelled: “Proposals for the Canadian Just Transition Act”. Needless to say they push the Justin Trudeau led Federal Government and all the provincial governments to jump on board the “Just Transition”. They want the Federal Government to establish a “Just Transition Ministry” and equip it with bureaucrats ensuring the utopia of a “carbon-free” Canada with lots of low carbon, sustainable “green jobs” as the outcome!
If one does a word search in the 28 pages using the symbol “$” or the word “dollars” you come up with a big “0” but if you plug in “Net-Zero” you get 3 hits and if you try “emissions” it will generate 28 hits. As one would expect searching the words “transition” and “just transition” respectively generated 391 and 293 hits. The proclamation is sprinkled with examples the authors feel exemplify what should be done in Canada. They cite Spain, Scotland, New Zealand and Germany as examples of countries moving in the “Just Transition” direction but don’t bother to mention those countries are all suffering from high energy prices coupled with climbing energy poverty. You certainly won’t find any concerns expressed about the costs of the Just Transition on families or households in the 28 pages.
The word “objective(s)” can be found 32 times and aligns with the word “Tables” found 27 times as the proclamation insists the Federal and Provincial governments establish objectives via those tables that must be adhered to under legislation set by the federal and provincial governments. Naturally these objectives require “monitoring” by more bureaucrats.
We should all be troubled by the fact that four of the five ENGO (more on BLUEGREEN below) are registered charities and all of them seem somewhat dependent on handouts (grants) and contracts from all three levels of government. A quick review of the four and their CRA charity filings indicates over the five years of CRA records they have reported receiving over $27 million tax dollars, mainly as grants. IISD is one example with grants committed of almost $40 million. Equiterre is another example reporting having received almost $7.7 million in grants/donations in their CRA filings over the past five years from Federal and Provincial governments. Equiterre was reputedly co-founded by Steven Guilbeault, current Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Additionally two of them (Environmental Defence, IISD) have been contracted by government Ministries or subsets. It is also worth noting IISD also gets millions of dollars from UN Agencies, International Governments and their agencies as well as Foundations as noted in their Consolidated Financial Statement of March 31, 2022.
Now, let’s take a look at BLUEGREEN a not-for-profit whose membership consists of four charities (Pembina Institute, Environmental Defence, Columbia Institute and Clean Energy Canada), one not-for-profit (Broadbent Institute) and two unions (United Steelworkers and Unifor)!
BLUEGREEN
BLUEGREEN”s homepage states: “We can create good jobs across the country by making renewable energy, using energy more efficiently, decarbonizing manufacturing, and building more public transit.“
The above statement seems incongruous with what most would imagine, the two biggest private sector unions in Canada, would buy into, should their leaders reflect on how accomplishing the foregoing would impact their members. Interestingly no one from either of the unions were cited as “Contributors” to the “proclamation” paper but two of them from Unifor were named as “reviewers”!
If one looks at their respective websites for their views on “climate change” they appear somewhat less committed, then the proclamation in the “Proposal”. One senior individual within the United Steelworkers Union (USU) at an event last year stated: “In the past, we knew that investments in our plants would provide long-term benefits. Today, the same logic must apply to the environmental question.“ Identifying those investments is not an easy task as a major ingredient attracting investments is cheap energy but that is what the “Transition” will affect the most so, “long-term benefits” appear elusive. That should send a not-so-subtle message to PM Trudeau and his Ministers!
USU sent two observers to COP 27 in Egypt and one of the issues they noted was the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and their synopsis stated: “This measure involves the introduction of a price (tax) on high-carbon products entering Canada. Other countries are preparing for the implementation of such a measure.“ Obviously this has implications for Canada’s trade relationship with other countries, but it appears the USU recognizes the impact it may have on their members unless we implement it too!
In respect to Unifor an article on their website emphasized: “Revenue from carbon pricing be invested in ensuring that transitions for workers and communities are appropriately managed through training and matching displaced workers with new opportunities.“ That statement suggests the Federal Government abandon the current carbon tax rebate program and instead “invest” it to create those “transitions” the Proposal recommends.
The Broadbent Institute is of course named after Ed Broadbent the former leader of the Federal NDP and as one would expect they are gung ho on the Just Transition and push Canada to spend lots more! Rick Smith who has become an icon of the “climate change” push wrote an article for the Broadbent Institute saying “we should be spending in the hundreds of billions, not just billions in the single digits.“
The four charities include Environmental Defence where Rick Smith was the head honcho for 9 years but now he is the President of CICC, a taxpayer funded ENGO pushing the “net-zero” initiative on behalf of the Trudeau government. Needless to say ED has received grants and contracts over the years from us taxpayers.
The Columbia Institute in its CRA filings does not claim any contributions from any of the three levels of government seemingly obtaining most of its revenue from other “charities”.
Clean Energy Canada is a “climate and clean energy program” within the confines of Simon Fraser University so doesn’t report on an individual basis to the CRA charities. As one would suspect SFU on the other hand in it’s March 31, 2022 filing with the CRA reportedly received over $358 million (38.3%) of its gross revenue from the three levels of government. A search of Federal contracts disclosed many to SFU from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change which we should assume went to Clean Energy Canada.
Now examining the Pembina Institute’s CRA filings one sees they claimed to have received $5,576K in grants from three levels of governments. A search of the Federal Governments “Grants and Contribution” site however indicates they handed out $10,450K to Pembina! That is almost double the information filed with the CRA but with the CRA Union suggesting they will go on strike in early April they are unlikely to investigate. The Pembina Institute also were handed $963K in contracts by the Federal Government over the same five years.
Conclusion
The objective of ENGO employees, numbering in the tens of thousands, receiving huge support from taxpayers both via donations they receive (providing tax benefits to contributors) and via the various handouts from Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments is self evident!
Those ENGO employees are concerned events happening around the developed world countries with costs of energy rising to historical levels are creating pushbacks on their views the “net-zero” target may be abandoned. The result is their jobs are in jeopardy so for that reason they continue to push the narrative about climate change and the “Just Transition” objectives. The bulk of those employed by ENGO fail to do proper research but have been hugely successful at manipulating elected politicians in Canada and those appointed to organizations, such as the United Nations, convincing them mankind are in full control of the weather.
We, here in Canada and elsewhere around the world need to continue the pushback or we and our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences! Spending “the hundreds of billions“ proposed by Rick Smith in the Broadbent Institute article is beyond belief with energy poverty spiralling around the world.
The time has come to put an end to the Just Transition!
*ENGO are Environmental Non-Government Organizations
According to the eco-warriors using 7,400 acres (0.37%) of the 2 million acres of the Greenbelt land for the creation of “affordable housing” is something that should never be allowed so about 200 of them joined together to sign a letter making their views known. While they have expressed some legitimate concerns with Bill 23 and its negative effects on “conservation authorities” they have failed to recognize the unaffordable nature of housing affecting so many Ontario families. The CBC reported that a request by the leader of the Ontario Green Party has gone to the Government of Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner asking for an investigation as to whether the plan has broken ethics rules. Those 7,400 acres could easily accommodate well over 74,000 homes or more in local municipalities and somewhat contain climbing house prices in the province but that goes against the wishes of those out to save the planet from “climate change” or what used to be referred to by them as “global warming”!
Many of those same eco-warriors back in the days of the McGuinty/Wynne led government(s) pushed for the creation of the Greenbelt. They were rewarded by the allocation of those 2 million acres as protected land even though large portions of it were close to communities where housing needs were growing. At the same time the “charitable” Greenbelt Foundation was created and supplied with Ontario taxpayer dollars which continues to this day.
The Greenbelt Foundation is a registered charity and their March 31, 2021 report indicates 89.4% ($4.079 million) of their gross revenue came from the Province ($3.828 million) and the Federal government ($251K). Only $12K came via receipted charitable donations despite their spending $479K on advertising and promotion and $1,677K on compensation.
Somewhat related to the foregoing pushback by the eco-warriors saw the Minister of Energy Todd Smith, recently receive a response from IESO (independent electricity system operator) in respect to his prior directive(s) to request a plan on how the province could achieve a full “decarbonization” of the electricity system. The minister had issued those directives even though the current electricity system in Ontario is already slightly over 92% emissions free.
The IESO responded with their December 15, 2022 Pathways to Decarbonization a 39 page report that predicts by 2050 Ontario’s capacity will be 88,000 MW (megawatts) versus what the report claims is now 42,000 MW. We assume the latter includes all DER (distributed energy resources) such as about 2,200 MW of solar, 600 MW of IWT (industrial wind turbines) small hydro, combined heat and power plants, battery storage, electric vehicles, and consumers who reduce electricity use on demand.
The ”Pathways” to get to that 88,000 MW include some interesting turnarounds by the Premier Ford led government who killed the GEA (Green Energy Act) enacted by former Premier McGuinty but now appears determined to make life for Ontarians much worse and more expensive. The plan put forward by IESO will mean by 2050 Ontario will be reputedly powered by the generation sources in the following chart!
IESO’s estimate of the costs are as low as $375 billion to a high of $425 billion including substantial expenditures on transmission systems. The report estimates electricity costs would rise to $200/$215/MWh. It is important to note IESO don’t hypothesize on the individual costs of the additional 68,793 MW by source such as the 15,000 MW of hydrogen or nuclear, but they do suggest the province had better start working soon as timelines for new transmission lines and the additional 17,800 MW of nuclear will be a long-drawn-out process. We should also be pretty sure their estimate on the cost of those 15,000 MW of hydrogen is more like a guess rather then a fact based estimate.
It is also interesting IESO includes an addition of 6,000 MW of solar capacity and 17,600 MW of IWT (industrial wind turbines) capacity as part of the “decarbonization” process as both are intermittent and frequently unreliable. IWT also have the bad habit of causing harm to humans as well as decimating birds and bats. It is likely those new planned IWT will receive considerable pushback by many municipalities throughout the province. The latter is a factor as municipalities now have the power to deny access. One should wonder if the Ford government will legislate; the power to deny access for IWT, is no longer an option for municipalities in their move to decarbonize the electricity sector?
Looking further at the planned addition of IWT and solar throughout the province will also mean the loss of considerable land for both farming and nature as both energy sources require either (or both) land clearing and/or farmland reductions.
Based on estimates of what land will be required for the additional wind and solar generation should make the eco-warriors very upset. Land required per MW of IWT varies from 2 acres/MW to 40 acres/MW of capacity so the 17,600 MW would need 35,200 acres on the low side to as much as 704,000 acres on the high side. The additional 6,000 MW of solar could require as little as 5 acres/MW on the low side or up to 10 acres/MW on the high side meaning as little as 30,000 acres or as much as 60,000 acres. What the foregoing suggests is both the additional IWT and solar could easily be accommodated on the Greenbelt’s 2 million acres.
We should wonder how those 200 eco-warriors, who signed the letter to stop “affordable housing” on the Greenbelt, would feel, if the foregoing is the eventual conclusion as to where those wind turbines and solar panels in IESO’s “decarbonization” plan are destined for?
Wouldn’t that make the Greenbelt even greener with all those carbon free generating sources?
A recent chart was posted by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) whose membership consists of 38 “high income” democratic countries. The chart lists countries around the world with a “carbon pricing instrument” for the year 2021 with the lowest (Brazil) at the top and the highest (United Kingdom) at the bottom. Canada was ranked as the sixth (6th) highest and four of the top six were European countries (Germany, France, Italy, and the UK) and the only other one in the top six slightly outranking Canada was South Korea!
The chart coincidently popped up when doing research on how countries were reporting on “energy poverty” amongst their households/populations. All energy costs have risen considerably higher than they were even a year ago as we; in the Northern Hemisphere, face the upcoming winter so we should be concerned about how those higher energy costs will affect the general population. Viewing the chart suggested a look at the six (6) countries, who have imposed the highest “carbon price”, to see what their “energy poverty” data disclosed. Data was not readily available in all cases but what was available told the story that “energy poverty” certainly affects a large percentage of the population in all six of those countries except for South Korea where no specific “energy poverty“ data could be found!
Energy poverty country by country NB:
Korea: A search demonstrated no articles or studies defining the percentage of households suffering from “energy poverty” but it is worth noting South Korea imports 95% of its energy needs so we should suspect “energy poverty” is high. Korea’s overall poverty rate is estimated to be 15.3% by Statista as of the end of 2021 so we would expect a similar percentage of their population would be at or close to that level in respect to “energy poverty”!
United Kingdom: There are many articles and research papers related to “energy poverty” in the UK and a recent report from the University of York states: “More than three-quarters of households in the UK, or 53 million people, will have been pushed into fuel poverty by January 2023, according to a new report authored by York academics.“ The article about the report goes on to note: “On 26 August Ofgem (Ofgem is the energy regulator for Great Britain) announced the energy price cap will increase to £3,549 per year from 1 October 2022. The electricity and gas price cap will rise again in January 2023. The size of the January increase has not yet been announced, but it is expected to take bills to £4,200 per year, with some sources predicting even larger increases.“ It’s worth pointing out the OECD chart claims the UK has the highest “carbon pricing instrument” which currently is 136% higher than Canada’s. With our rates scheduled to rise by $15/tonne annually it won’t be long before our rates surpass those of the UK.
Italy: The above chart indicates Italy has the second highest carbon price in the world but there seems to be relatively scarce recent information reported about “energy poverty”. One article from September 3, 2022 did disclose “One in six Italians, or up to nine million people, could sink into energy poverty due to soaring bills across the EU, Italy’s ANSA news agency reported on Saturday, citing the Italian General Confederation of Crafts.“ The foregoing suggests 15.3% of Italy’s current population will be or are now suffering from energy poverty. The article also notes: “Italy’s Ecological Transition Minister Roberto Cingolani planned to ask the entire population to turn the heating down, starting from October. Italy has already introduced some limits on the use of central heating in public buildings and apartment blocks, and these are expected to be tightened under the new measures.“ The article goes on to say: “Italy’s Serie A football league announced plans to put a four-hour limit on the use of floodlights in stadiums on match days, as part of energy-saving measures“. Does that suggest future games will be played partially in the dark or only during daylight hours?
France: France shows up on the chart as the country with the third highest carbon price and there is a fair amount of data about “energy” and “fuel poverty”! One study titled “Energy Poverty in the EU” notes “the inclusion of transportation increases the energy poverty rate in France from 18% to 21%. This is particularly relevant as CO2 prices and thus fuel prices are expected to further increase to protect the environment and combat climate change.“ The foregoing indicates as many as 14.3 million people in France are experiencing “fuel poverty” whereas another article suggests in 2019 there were 3.5 million households facing “energy poverty”. Residents per household in France is lower than most countries with only about 2.4 residents per household suggesting, at that time, about 8.4 million were experiencing “energy poverty”!
Germany: A very recent article about “energy poverty” in Germany contained the following rather disturbing statement: “One in four Germans (approximately 21 million) are currently energy impoverished, up from one in six in 2018. The poor and disenfranchised are far more likely than others to slip into energy poverty. A member of Germany’s lower-middle class is now twice as likely to fall under the “energy poor” category compared to only one year ago. The German government is scrambling to ease the pressure of increasing prices for suppliers and consumers. “ The article says Germany is doing the “scrambling” by various means such as: “One of Germany’s efforts to curb energy poverty is through reducing the use of natural gas, through both energy-saving measures and switching to different fuels. Most public buildings are lowering their thermostats, and monuments will no longer be lit at night. Heated swimming pools are banned. Germans are being encouraged to take cold showers. The government is also reducing taxes on other forms of fuel, giving discounts to people who switch to public transportation, and reopening old coal power plants.“
Canada: Once again it is difficult to locate recent reports or articles related to how many households or individuals in Canada are experiencing “energy poverty” though yours truly has tried on numerous occasions over the past many years. Natural Resources Canada published a 145 page “2021-2022 Energy Fact Book” which has one page (#37) providing a chart for 2019 suggesting “energy poverty” affected just 6% of Canadian households. The foregoing would mean 1,060,000 households and with 2.9 people per household would be, 3.1 million Canadians (8.5% of our population) who experienced “energy poverty” in 2019! One should suspect; as the data is from 2019, it came before energy prices from natural gas, electricity, furnace oil, propane, etc. jumped to current levels as pointed out in a very recent article. Amusingly the NRCan report on page 38 notes “Canada’s energy prices in 2019 are relatively low” with comparisons to [surely coincidental to the OECD chart] France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The only outlier was the USA and the latter beats Canada except for “electricity” costs possibly due to Quebec’s low hydro prices.
It is interesting to note countries with the highest “carbon pricing instrument” in the G20 are those countries where energy poverty is the highest and Canada seems to be quickly heading in the same direction under the policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his minions such as Ministers, Freeland, Guilbeault and Wilkinson.
Surely with our carbon price scheduled to rise to $170/tonne by 2030 and the push to shut down fossil fuel extraction and generation it won’t be long before Canada’s “energy poverty” rates surpass those of the UK, Germany, etc. and Canada will be able to claim the title for both “highest carbon price” and for highest percentage of people living in “energy poverty”.
Quite the legacy PM Justin Trudeau will leave our children and grandchildren!
NB: The data found in some cases specifically was related to “energy poverty” but in other cases it was referenced as “fuel poverty” which presumably includes fuel travel costs in addition to energy required by households.
Plato is credited with saying, “Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught falsehoods in school. And the person that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.”
A couple of recent events occurred that when viewed, should strike us all as “strange” but depending on one’s perspective who is telling the truth and who is the “lunatic and fool” may well differ.
Joe Oliver, former Federal Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Finance under the Harper led Federal Conservative Party penned an article in the Financial Post on September 1, 2022 and it castigates the Justin Trudeau led Federal Liberal Party about the damaging consequences of its green policies.
The opening two sentences of Oliver’s article were words of wisdom and common sense as he stated: “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should be feeling isolated in his campaign against fossil fuels, especially Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), as leaders around the world reduce their countries’ reliance on inadequate renewable energy and tone down their own rhetoric about lowering GHG emissions. But for political and ideological reasons his government cannot admit to the terribly damaging consequences of its green policies and the urgent need to fundamentally change course.”
When Greg Rickford was the Ontario Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines he appointed Mr. Oliver to the Board of Directors of IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) and a couple of months later he was elected as Chair of the IESO Board of Directors. IESO is responsible for managing Ontario’s power system and defines their responsibilities as: “The IESO is the coordinator and integrator of Ontario’s electricity system. Our system operators monitor the energy needs of the province in real time – 24 hours a day, 7 days a week – balancing supply and demand and directing the flow of electricity across Ontario’s transmission lines.”
Ontario’s current Energy Minister, Todd Smith, (appointed June 18, 2021) and formerly the critic on the “energy” portfolio when the Ontario Conservative Party were in opposition) on August 23, 2022 issued a directive to IESO which contained some surprising instructions to the President. Needless to say, the directive was also copied to the Hon. Joe Oliver, P.C., Board Chair!
The directive from Minister Smith babbles on about how “Ontario is on track to acquire the electricity generation we need to power our government’s success in driving electrification and strong economic growth, including unprecedented investments that are creating new jobs in electric vehicle and battery manufacturing and green steel.”
Anyone who has followed the news about the foregoing investments in EV and battery manufacturing and green steel will be aware both the Ford led Provincial government and the Trudeau led Federal government joined hands and have handed out billions of our tax dollars to achieve those “unprecedented investments”. It is also worth noting those “new jobs” are not new as the handouts to the various companies were simply to “retain” the jobs associated with the automotive and steel manufacturers that were already here in the province.
The concept of a “net-zero” buy-in by Minister Smith seems evident with the push to both declare a moratorium on gas generation and “replacing natural gas with green fuels such as hydrogen and renewable natural gas, or the development of utility-scale carbon capture and storage” as a directive from October 27, 2021 via his “Pathway to Achieve Zero Emissions in Ontario’s Electricity System” suggests. The above seems to have been confirmed based on his comments in a recent CBC article where he clearly states:
“I’ve asked the IESO to speed up that report back to us so that we can get the information from them as to what the results would be for our grid here in Ontario and whether or not we actually need more natural gas,” Smith said Tuesday after question period.
“I don’t believe that we do.”
No estimation of the costs of the “Pathway” are noted and no castigation of the Trudeau government by Minister Smith would strongly suggest he is on the same page as Trudeau and those in the Trudeau cabinet such as Steven Guilbeault, the Federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. The comment above: “I don’t believe that we do” implies he is obviously conflicted with the Honourable Joe Oliver, Chair of the IESO Board.
As Plato suggests and we Ontarians should wonder; is Oliver “the person that dares to tell the truth” and Smith the one who is calling him “a lunatic and fool” or is it the other way around?
Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives 