Five ENGO Demand More Government Bureaucracies to Execute the Just Transition

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

Climate Change, the Road to Net-Zero and some Recent Eye-Catchers

Over the past week or so those with an interest in what has been going on in Davos, Switzerland, at the WEF conflab may have missed a few interesting happenings.  Here is a brief review of a few of them.

New York state to forgive $672 million of overdue gas, electric bills

A January 19, 2023 article in Reuters carried the news, New York Governor Kathy Hochul was going to forgive $672 million of unpaid electricity and gas bills for almost 500,000 customers. She said it was “the largest utility customer financial assistance program in state history.” The forgiveness will provide “one-time credits to all residential non-low-income customers and small-commercial customers for any utility arrears through May 1, 2022.“ Governor Hochul went further and “launched a pilot program that guarantees its low-income participants will not pay over 6% of their incomes on electricity, and set aside an additional $200 million in discounts on electric bills for over 800,000 New York state residents who make less than $75,000 who are ineligible under the current discount.“  As a matter of interest New York state has the 9th highest residential electricity rates of all US states and the $672 million is only about 10% (without currency conversion) of the $6.5 billion Ontario taxpayers absorb annually to keep our electricity rates at current levels. Ontario’s huge cost increases were caused by the McGuinty/Wynne led governments and their renewable energy push with high contract prices driving rates up by over 100%. It is worth noting wind and solar contributed only 6% of NY’s total generation in 2021 and Governor Hochul has set 2030 as their carbon free targets at 70% and 100% by 2040. We should have serious doubts those targets are attainable without more financial pain to New Yorkers!

For all their ferocity, California storms were not likely caused by global warming, experts say                                        

The foregoing headline was from the LA Times January 19, 2023 edition, and as one should suspect the Times is considered a MSM news outlet.  The article was related to the outcry from ENGO blaming the recent “drought-to-deluge” cycle that impacted California causing floods, property damage and 19 deaths on (as one would expect) “climate change”! It is so refreshing to see the reporter actually did research and this particular paragraph stands out in the article: “Although the media and some officials were quick to link a series of powerful storms to climate change, researchers interviewed by The Times said they had yet to see evidence of that connection. Instead, the unexpected onslaught of rain and snow after three years of punishing drought appears akin to other major storms that have struck California every decade or more since experts began keeping records in the 1800s.“

It’s so nice to see a few MSM journalists actually consult with real weather “experts” not just those like Al Gore or Greta who push for mankind to stop using fossil fuels to save the planet!

It’s Armageddon: Media Silent on Biden Admin Plan to Snatch Public Land For Solar Farms

The captioned headline was from the Washington Free Beacon a few days ago and noted:  “In December 2022, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland announced that her department would expedite plans to build solar energy farms across tens of thousands of untouched public land in 11 Western states. The announcement has garnered little to no national attention, save for the occasional report that the Biden administration is expanding renewable energy production.“ The article, linked to a presentation by the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM), referenced those 11 Western States and specifically provided details on six of them.  The public land identified in those six states totalled 440,200,000 acres of which 97,921,069 acres (22.2%) were designated as “Available for Development by BLM! One acre could potential hold up to 2,000 panels so at that level for just those 6 states there could be as many as 19 billion solar panels installed. We should all wonder after their “end of life” where would those solar panels wind up. A Harvard Business Review article about solar panels suggested: “In an industry where circularity solutions such as recycling remain woefully inadequate, the sheer volume of discarded panels will soon pose a risk of existentially damaging proportions.“ The article went on to note;  “The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)’s official projections assert that “large amounts of annual waste are anticipated by the early 2030s” and could total 78 million tonnes by the year 2050.“  The Harvard article goes on to say: “With the current capacity, it costs an estimated $20–$30 to recycle one panel. Sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1–$2.“ Perhaps solar panels are not the nirvana pushed by those eco-warriors who want us to completely abandon fossil fuels including US President Biden! 

It’s hard to spot any solar panels on the roof of President Biden’s beachfront home pictured below.

The Biden Administration Finally Admits Its Mistake in Canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline

Last but not least was a great article disclosing how the US Department of Energy quietly released a report about the effects of President Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline right after his inauguration. As the article discloses; the cancellation; “has already cost the United States thousands of jobs and billions in economic growth while families suffer under the weight of record high energy prices.“ The article was written by Tom Harris and posted in Real Clear Energy just a few days ago. The article included specific details from the report noting: “the pipeline would have created between 16,149 and 59,000 jobs and would have had an economic benefit of between $3.4 and 9.6 billion.“ What the foregoing also suggests is there was an effect on Canada as the crude oil that would have been carried in that pipeline would have been from Canada and have generated both royalties and taxes to government coffers. The sale of that crude would have benefited the economy and increased the value of the Canadian dollar giving it more buying power and have helped to reduce our inflation rate.

The article goes on to state:  “Two years into sowing its Green New Deal policies, the administration is reaping a bitter harvest. Due to Biden’s folly, oil, natural gas and electricity prices have more than doubled in just a single year. Meanwhile, more than 28 percent of Americans abstained from purchasing food or medicine to pay an energy bill in 2021.“ Additional points in the article clearly outline the cascade caused by the cancellation and its effect on global energy prices that hit the European community even harder then North America.

The follies of the Biden Administration’s mistakes will undoubtedly go down in history in a negative way as will our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who didn’t fight back on behalf of Canadians after Biden’s decree.

We should all recognize and note the damage being done on a collective basis by the WEF, the UNIPCC, etc. but we mustn’t forgive or ignore the damage being caused by our local politicians be they municipal, provincial or federal!

As has been highlighted in the foregoing four above brief synopsis the road to “Net-Zero” is paved with bad intentions and bad outcomes.  

Steven Guilbeault, “Green Jesus” or the “Grinch out to Destroy Canada’s Prosperity”

On May 12, 2022, CTV News issued a report with a video about a second minke whale being observed in the St. Lawrence River in Montreal with the first one observed on May 9th!  The article noted this was the first time in over a century two whales had been spotted in the waters off Montreal.

Now, fast forward a few months to October 21, 2022, and an article in the Antarctica Journal stated Montreal would dump 2 billion gallons (about 7.6 billion litres) of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River and they apparently received the blessing of the Environment Ministry.  This wasn’t the first time they had dumped sewage as a CTV article from November 15, 2018, reported: “A suburb of Montreal has begun the process of dumping an estimated 162 million litres (35.6 million gallons) of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River“. They also dumped 8 billion litres back in 2015 and Catherine McKenna, then Federal Minister of the Environment gave her blessings to the dump.

Steven Guilbeault, current Minister of the Environment and Climate Change represents the Montreal riding of Laurier–Sainte-Marie and presumably gave his blessing to the latest raw sewage dump.  We should assume he wouldn’t want that fact to be known and tarnish the “Green Jesus” nickname he was reputedly given by La Presse many years ago.

Two weeks ago Guilbeault was interviewed by the NY Times and during the half-hour interview was quired as follows:

I’m curious about the sort of broader idea of being in opposition to the Harper government. I mean, it’s clear you had something to fight against, which seems like a natural extension of your previous activism. Did it feel like a familiar position?

He vaguely answered: “It’s a fascinating question, Lulu, because when you look at the history of the environmental movement, it was really created around being an opposition to something, to companies dumping toxic waters in our rivers and streams and lakes“. Interestingly he made no mention of his Municipality of Montreal’s habit of dumping raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River and the potential damage to the aquatic eco-system in his response but that is what we have come to expect from those eco-warriors.  He turned a blind eye to what is happening in his backyard!  How selective! 

Interestingly enough an article in the National Post October 30, 2021, shortly after his appointment as Minister of the Environment and Climate Change said:  “He told Radio-Canada he had wanted to work on something more local and more solution-oriented. That also meant working with governments on environmental issues, work that wasn’t a natural fit for the activism-oriented Greenpeace.”

The foregoing seems like a rather empty work plan as he has done nothing about his “local” community’s habit of dumping sewage into the St. Lawrence.  The CBC comment though does highlight his involvement with Greenpeace and activism while employed by them from 1997 until 2007.  Shortly after he left Greenpeace, he co-founded Equiterre.

Amazingly from 2010 to 2018 he was a registered lobbyist for Equiterre and after he was elected to Parliament on October 21, 2019 Federal grants to Equiterre took off and we generous taxpayers (surely coincidental) have provided them with almost $2.8 million so far.

His NY Times interview also touched on his arrests for activism while with Greenpeace and he went on and on about his climbing the CN Tower and his very first arrest at a OPG (Ontario Power Generation) coal generation plant in an attempt to prevent delivery by ship of coal to power the unit.

His two other arrests were not discussed but surely one of them should have been in respect to his stunt on Ralph Klein’s roof when Klein was Premier of Alberta.  That climb was to install a solar panel on the Klein’s roof carried out by activists including Guilbeault as an article in the National Post noted just after his appointment as the Minister for the Environment. As the article notes, “On April 11, 2002, Greenpeace pranksters climbed onto the roof of then-premier Ralph Klein’s bungalow in Lakeview. From inside, Klein’s wife, Colleen, saw vans arrive and people in orange uniforms take a ladder to the house. Mrs. Klein later said, “I was terrified,” she told an interviewer years later. She thought it was some kind of home invasion.“

Trying to determine if Guilbeault was jailed or fined as a result of any of the four arrests for his activism and the penalties he may have incurred is difficult. The only one with any detail on what the court decided was for climbing the CN Tower and for that he was fined $1,000 and ordered to perform 100 hours of community work.  We should all surmise the “community work” simply entailed him preaching about “global warming”!

To demonstrate the hypocrisy of Guilbeault, the Toronto Sun back in November 2020 called him out for the car mileage he was racking up during the Covid lockdowns at the rate of well over 3,000 km per month or three times what the average driver does. A year earlier during a radio interview he stated he would try to do without a car. His excuse, in respect to the Sun article was provided by his press secretary who stated, “he had to attend meetings in Ottawa”.  We should wonder why he didn’t simply take the Via train back and forth between Montreal and Ottawa! 

During his NY Times interview when asked if the environmental movement created in opposition could evolve beyond that, his partial answer was, “Everyone talks about electrification of transportation. OK, I’m all for it. I don’t own a vehicle. I’ve never owned a vehicle. I’ll never own a vehicle. But my ministerial vehicle is an electric vehicle.“  His strange response to the question suggests he may have been concerned the interviewee may have done some research that he needed to dispel in case he was asked about the Toronto Sun article! Oh, he probably rode his bike to Toronto to climb the CN Tower and all the way to Calgary to climb on the Klein’s roof (sarcasm fully intended)!

It is also interesting to look back at the two institutions (Greenpeace and Equiterre) Guilbeault spent his time with as both were members of the Strathmere Group; an army of 12 eco-warrior charities/not-for-profit creations that spent time organizing activities/media attention, etc. etc. in a push to scare everyone. Their initial “global warming” scare eventually evolved into “climate change” and their screams grew louder as the UN under the UNIPCC joined in!  Yours truly wrote about the activities of the Strathmere Group in several articles and Part 3 lists the 12 Canadian members.

The Strathmere Group and their affiliates have exerted tremendous influence on municipal, provincial and federal politicians. Those politicians seem to no longer possess either common sense or financial acumen. As a result, today, we find ourselves concerned about what Europe may or will experience this winter being, either a lack of energy or unaffordable costs. Media attention in Europe anticipate there will be a substantial increase in “deaths from the cold” and perhaps as many as 147,000. Many parents in Europe, here in Canada and elsewhere are also concerned how our children and grandchildren will survive in the future without fossil fuels.

As Christmas approaches, my belief is we should regard the “Green Jesus”, Steven Guilbeault and his Liberal and NDP cohorts as the Grinches out to destroy Canada’s prosperity!

Ontario’s Ring of Fire or a Few Smoking Embers

If one read a recent article in the Financial Post one would surmise Canada was on the cusp of becoming a super power in the mining and production of critical minerals needed in the manufacturing of EV batteries. The article’s headline claimed Canada had vaulted into second spot behind only China. No doubt, the claim was made at least partially due to the fact the Provincial government has been making noises about the wonders of the 2007 discovery of the “Ring of Fire”!  The initial reports about the discovery indicated minerals available for mining had a value of anywhere from $60 billion to a high of $117 billion and contained a wide variety of what are now considered valuable minerals for manufacturing EV batteries.

Consistent with the foregoing is the billions of dollars being handed out to Ontario auto manufacturers (switching to EV manufacturing), potential battery manufacturers, Quebec bus and battery manufacturers, etc. etc. by federal and provincial governments and even some to the auto worker’s union by Ontario. Our politicians seem to believe handing out tax dollars will somehow eliminate the ICE (internal combustion engine) as they attempt to move the world to the utopia (in their eyes) of  full electrification and achieve “net-zero” emissions while Canada becomes an EV manufacturer.

The handouts were in full bloom recently as both Premier Ford and PM Trudeau appeared at the GM plant in Ingersoll where they had each previously handed out $259 million of our tax dollars. They were there to celebrate the conversion of the CAMI plant to manufacture electric vans and the first rollout of a BrightDrop van.  Needless to say Ford mentioned the “Ring of Fire” during his short presentation.

The Ring of Fire is it a yes or is it a no?

As noted above there have been many articles about the Ring of Fire since it was first announced some 15 years ago but it’s still not clear if, or when, we will ever hear of an actual mine being opened. An article just over a month ago in the Northern Ontario Business site was headlined: “15 years after Ring of Fire discovery, mining timeline no clearer“.  The article went on to describe how field explorations were planned at a site with major nickel minerals along with an environmental assessment, a feasibility study, First Nations consultations, etc. etc. The acting CEO for the Ring of Fire Metals when asked about time frames as to when the nickel mine might open, stated they wanted to do more exploratory work but were awaiting provincial exploration permits. He stated the biggest issue related to knowing when the 200-kilometre north-south road to the Ring of Fire will be built. One issue also mentioned in the article and a key to mining, is the availability of electric generation.  The article suggests the province reputedly has “a strong desire to extend the power distribution network to the James Bay region”. We taxpayers should suspect both the road and the power distribution network will cost billions to complete and “save the planet” from climate change (sarcasm intended)!

The Ring of Fire has been touted by our politicians as a major benefit to Ontario as it is said to contain many of the “key minerals” needed to manufacture EV batteries and as a major component in making the “transportation” sector emissions free in line with the wishes of the UNIPCC and ENGO!

 Critical Minerals

As noted a key component to start the mining process is a road network and back in the Spring of this year Premier Ford announced the “Marten Falls and Webequie First Nations announced on April 14 that they will submit a Terms of Reference for the proposed Northern Road Link Environmental Assessment“ committing $1 billion tax dollars.  Further details were contained in an earlier February 7, 2022 Provincial overview of the “Ring of Fire”!

Another recent article appearing in the Sault Star suggests the U.S. may even fund development in the Ring of Fire to offset the dominance of China in the production of EV batteries.  The U.S. military has reported to have talked to some Canadian mining companies about some critical mining projects related to President Biden’s “commitment to cutting its reliance on China for the metals needed to build defence equipment and expand the electric vehicle (EV) market.“

Based on the foregoing one would assume development of the Ring of Fire is a foregone conclusion that will quickly push forward but we shouldn’t “hold our breath” expecting it will be soon.

Ring of Fire may just be smoking embers for years to come

The Globe and Mail posted an article just days ago with information from a top federal government official stating; “it’s possible no mines will be built in the region, and that there is no guarantee Ottawa will ever come forward with the roughly $1-billion in funding needed for development to proceed.” Jeff Labonté, assistant deputy minister for Natural Resources Canada suggested there is a standoff between the Feds and the Province of Ontario over funding as just one aspect. Labonté went on pointing out other obstacles including lengthy First Nations consultations, various environmental studies that take years etc.

One major incident involves the Neskantaga First Nation who have taken the province to court related to a “lack” of consultation and their continuing “boil-water” advisory which the Trudeau led government promised to fix but hasn’t done yet!  An article from November 25, 2021 in Northern Ontario Business noted Chief Christopher Moonias said the following presumably referencing Premier Ford:  “I live on the Attawapiskat River where the proposed so-called Ring of Fire is. There has not been any consultation. We will not let them cross our river. What a f—— idiot of him to say these things,”.

Another issue in the Globe article states the Marten First Nations applied for a three-and-a-half-year extension, to early 2029 for the environmental assessment, because of the impact of the pandemic. To top things off the Federal Government have failed to commit any funding to building the necessary road(s) into the Ring of Fire and match the $1 billion in funding, the Province of Ontario has committed.

Those Paying no Taxes Control the Politicians

If one looks back a few years to June 2019 the Aroland First Nation signed an MOU with Noront Resources to advance the planning process of the Ring of Fire and were promised 150,000 shares in the company, subject to the TSX approval.  Just eight months later Aroland joined with Wildlife Conservation Society of Canada and the Osgoode Environmental Justice and Sustainability Clinic in a request to the then Federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Jonathan Wilkinson, to seek a “regional impact assessment” which he granted.  The assessment still has not been issued so one should assume the Federal government will not approve anything until the assessment is finished!

It is ironic the two parties who joined with Aroland are both substantial charities who receive a large portion of their annual revenue from the Federal and Provincial governments while the Aroland First Nation pay no taxes and are presumably dependent on us taxpayers for their well being.

Conclusion

If the Provincial Government under Premier Ford is intent on moving forward with mining development in the “Ring of Fire”, he should take a leaf out of Premiers Smith of Alberta and Moe of Saskatchewan and fight the Federal government on the issue of governance of the province in respect to our natural resources.  Each province’s resources fall under the purview and control of the provinces so if Ford fails to fight that issue the billions of Ontario tax dollars he has handed out for development of the Ring of Fire will be seen as having been totally wasted and we will need to import those minerals from China.                                                               

Without the fight, we taxpayers will look back and see only the smoking embers or, as Johnny Cash, might say; “we fell into a burning Ring of Fire and it burned, burned, burned” our tax dollars!

Industrial Wind Turbines Obvious Fail September 29, 2022

Yesterday was another example of a low peak demand day in Ontario which frequently occurs in the Spring and Fall. The Ontario peak hour occurred at Hour 19 (hour ending at 5 PM) and only reached 16,083 MW.

Wind at that hour generated 167 MWh which was 4.4% of their (approximate) grid connected capacity (4,900 MW) and 3.4% of peak demand.  Thankfully Ontario’s natural gas generators were at the ready and produced 10.5% (1,701 MWh) of peak demand while nuclear and hydro delivered the rest.

Had Ontario eliminated natural gas generation as the OCAA (Ontario Clean Air Alliance) has convinced 34 municipalities, one should wonder; where would the 1,701 MWh of electricity natural gas plants produced have come from or, in its absence, what might have happened?

Looking at the foregoing and assuming Ontario was without variable natural gas generation which can be ramped up or down; how much IWT capacity would we have needed to avoid a blackout at that hour?  Based on how those IWT performed at that hour we would need almost 50,000 MW of their capacity (10.2 times current levels) just to have avoided a blackout.  The 50,000 MW capacity would represent the 167 MWh existing IWT provided along with the generation (1,701 MWh) we received from those natural gas plants at the 4.4% level the IWT generated at hour 19.

Currently Ontario has around 2,500 IWT (average of about 2 MW capacity per turbine) sprinkled throughout the province and the additional 45,000 MW capacity would add another 20/25,000 of them just to replace the power our natural gas plants provided during that peak hour yesterday.

Now try to imagine how many birds and bats those additional 20/25,000 IWT would kill and how much harm they would cause us humans when they are spinning and generating high decibel and infrasound?

As if the foregoing wasn’t bad enough start imagining how many of them would be needed during our summer and winter peak hours which frequently reach 20K MWh or more! With the push for electrification of our transportation and heating sources by our politicians and the eco-warriors we should see those peak hours at much higher levels in the future meaning more dependence on IWT, and an incredible cost for battery storage. The result would bring the cost of a kWh (kilowatt hour) to levels the UK, Europe are now experiencing or higher and bring widespread “energy poverty”! It would also bring blackouts or restrictions on our use of electricity as is currently happening in Europe.

The time has come for politicians of all stripes to recognize the damage their push is causing and will continue to cause! 

As elections for our municipal politicians loom next month, we much ask them (emphasis on the 34 municipalities) if they understand and appreciate the harm intermittent and unreliable electricity generation from IWT and solar panels will cause in their push to reputedly save the world from “climate change” by advocating and supporting the harmful “net-zero” UN target!

Tell them it is a fallacy as mankind is not the control knob for climate change!

Tracking the Evolution of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Back on December 14, 1996 when Terence Corcoran was a journalist for the Globe and Mail’s Report on Business (ROB) section they published an article he wrote titled “Just say no to Rio target”. Twenty-six years later it is worth re-reading the article bearing in mind the continuing and unfolding debacle it started the developed countries on shortly after the Rio Earth Summit of 1992!

Here it is:

ROB Column The Globe and Mail TERENCE CORCORAN December 14, 1996, 

Just say no to Rio target

CANADA will not meet the greenhouse gas emissions target agreed to at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. Thank goodness. If Ottawa and the provinces had tried to force us to live up to the unreal energy consumption target former prime minister Brian Mulroney signed on to four years ago during a Green binge, the Canadian economy would be in bad shape today.

To meet the target, Canada would have to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. According to the latest sophisticated computer simulations and forecasts — which are invariably wrong, by the way — Canadian industries and consumers will emit about 500 megatons of carbon in the year 2000, about 9 per cent more than we did in 1990. To meet the targets, therefore, Canada would have to cut energy use by about 10 per cent, a $20-billion economic hit that would significantly lower growth  and employment.

Not meeting the target is, in any case, almost totally irrelevant. Canada is not, as Environment Minister Sergio Marchi said the other day, “behind the eight ball” over the target — unless we insist on shooting it at ourselves. Regardless of the spin put on the target by environment ministers and writers, the target will not and should not be met for several powerful reasons. In the first place, the summit agreement is not legally binding. We can just say no. The targets never had any legitimacy in Canada anyway.

The Rio Summit was an orgy of ultra vires agreement-signing and back-room politicking by thousands of bureaucrats and special interest groups. No Canadian other than lobbyists and envirocrats ever saw the Framework Convention on Climate Change that supposedly commits Canada to reduce carbon emissions by the year 2000. No public support was sought for the accord, no parliamentary hearings were held, nobody knew what the agreement meant, nobody even knew the thing had been signed.

No wonder Ottawa and the provinces can’t get Canadians to go along with the carbon taxes and other drastic measures proposed over the years. Most Canadians probably also suspect that the targets are arbitrary, and of no significance to the scientific problem they’re intended to resolve. As author Gregg Easterbrook said in A Moment on the Earth: “Will the goal of the treaty, stabilization of carbon emissions at the 1990 level, prevent global warming? The answer is: Not a snowball’s chance in, well, Alberta, should the warming occur.”

Note that last phrase: “Should the warming occur” is still the operative cautionary principle surrounding global warming. Despite the reams of material and reports, the scientific basis for predicting that human energy consumption will cause a significant increase in temperature, or that temperature increases are necessarily bad for human life, remains highly uncertain. But even if we assume the worst, that warming is something that should raise a global call for action, it makes little sense to load a country like Canada with major regulatory burdens and growth-hindering taxes. Canada’s share of the world’s energy market is minuscule by any measure that’s reasonably proportionate to the greenhouse gas problem.

Greens and envirocrats often make Canada look like a pollution hell by citing per capita energy consumption figures. For example, in 1995, Canadian per capita production of carbon dioxide was 4.4 tonnes, third highest in the world behind Australia and the United States. But there are many reasons for this, including our cold climate, heavy production of primary resources and secondary goods, and vast geography.

Another faulty measure of Canada’s role is the country’s share of energy production as a percentage of the global total: 2.2 per cent. The U.S. share is 25 per cent, China’s 13 per cent, France’s 1.7 per cent. However, this raw measure is also inadequate because it fails to take into account Canada’s geographic scale. Any proper assessment of Canada’s role in the global economy would have to incorporate the fact that Canada’s geographic land and air mass is massive.

A more accurate indicator of Canada’s relative role would be a measure based on the ratio of emissions to national air mass. Compared with other countries — France, the United States or just about any other nation — Canada’s share of world emissions as a proportion of total geography would be insignificant.Even if greenhouse warming is a looming crisis, assigning Canada emission reduction targets that are identical to other countries turns Canada into a sacrificial lamb to global environmentalism. Canada’s 30 million people could stop living tomorrow, and the trend of greenhouse warming would not change.”

Letter to the Editor December 20, 1996

Shortly after the article appeared Jack Gibbons, (current Chair of the OCAA) sent a letter to the Globe and Mail which they posted. Anyone following my blog and posts over the past number of years are aware of Gibbons push to shut down electricity generation from fossil and nuclear fuel in Ontario and replace it with unreliable and intermittent wind and solar.  The following is the Gibbons letter:

Toronto — According to Terence Corcoran, if Canada stabilizes its carbon dioxide emissions, our gross national product and our unemployment rate will rise (Just Say No To Rio Target — Dec. 14).

Fortunately for our planet’s life support systems and future generations, Mr. Corcoran is wrong.

Numerous studies have shown that there is not a tradeoff between substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth. For example, the Ontario Carbon Dioxide Collaborative recently developed a strategy to reduce Ontario’s carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005 and reduce the energy costs of Ontario’s residential, commercial and industrial consumers.

According to the collaborative’s report, these dual objectives can be achieved by fuel switching from coal and oil to natural gas and by increasing our economy’s energy efficiency.

Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy.”

At this point it is worth a brief look at where Canada is today (2020 stats) versus 1996 in respect to total and per capita emissions. The Government of Canada post of emissions is only to the end of 2020 and notes they were 672 megatonnes and if one examines their chart it suggests in 1996, they were at the same level.  On a per capita basis however, they declined as the 1996 Census indicated Canada’s population was 28.8 million whereas in 2020 the population level had increased to 38.1 million.  Doing the math suggests Canada has reduced emissions by 24.5% on a per capita basis.

Greenhouse gas emissions, Canada, 1990 to 2020

If we look at China’s emissions over that same time frame they have increased from 3,503 megatonnes in 1996 to 10,668 megatonnes in 2020 for an increase of 7,165 megatonnes or 204.5%. Total global emissions in 2020 were 34,810 megatonnes so China’s emissions in 2020 represented 30.6% of global emissions but back in 1996 they represented only 14.5%.

As Canada has increased its “Annual Canadian Crude Oil Production by Crude Oil Typefrom 1996 daily production of 2,000 barrels per day to 4,687 barrels per day for an increase of 134% it would suggest our emissions should have shown a massive increase but they haven’t!

Perhaps it’s time our inane political leaders under Justin Trudeau and his minion, Jagmeet Singh, stop doing what they are trying to do to destroy the Canadian economy!

Net-Zero Looking like a No-Go by 2050 PART 1

The past several days has made it look like there isn’t “a hope in heaven or hell” to meet the commitments to reach net-zero by 2050. The promises made at COP-26 will be not be met, unless mankind is back living in caves by that date!  The following highlights several happenings impacting the impossible dreams of our elected leaders. Here are a just few that will also make eco-warriors upset!

Creaky U.S. power grid threaten progress on renewables, EVs

The captioned was labelled as a Reuters Special Report posted several days ago suggesting grid failures are becoming a big problem in the U.S. and caused by “climate change” bringing nasty things like; wildfires in California, hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, Midwest heat waves and a Texas deep freeze.  The author goes so far as to claim; “the seven regional gid operators in the United States are underestimating the growing threat of severe weather caused by climate change” claiming he checked data going back to the 1970s! Had he bothered to go back a little further he may have found heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires and deep freezes are not a new phenomenon that has only occurred during the past 50 years.  He did rightly note the “inherent unreliability” of wind and solar “exacerbates the network challenges” and requires grid expansion to get their generation to where they are needed!  The article goes on to cite the increasing demand for electricity that will be caused by all those EV (electric vehicles) charging their batteries but that means a huge increase in spending on the grid!  He cites John Kerry, U.S. Special Envoy who stated: “We can send a rover to Mars, but we can’t send an electron to California from New York.” My guess is if Kerry had investigated, he would find out New York has no spare electrons to send anywhere and moving that “electron” across the county would cost more than sending that rover to Mars!

A summer of Blackouts

Another recent article related to the U.S. in the City Journal (CJ) co-authored by the editor and a “Fellow” at the Manhattan Institute took a different tact. The article noted “rolling blackouts” will be caused by; “the closure of some coal and nuclear plants, and the unreliability of renewables like wind and solar”.  The article further states “the unreliability of renewables like wind and solar” reduced energy surpluses. The article goes on stating; “That’s left some places with little margin for error during peak usage times in mid-summer—potentially prompting the kind of blackouts California saw last year. The warnings have spurred calls to slow down climate-change-driven efforts to retire nuclear and fossil-fuel generating plants.“ The authors of this article make a more logical argument than the Reuters article as it cites immediate problems presumably inferring building transmission systems to carry an electron from NY to California is not the answer noting: “the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which coordinates and oversees the power grid for 15 midwestern and southern states serving more than 40 million people, has noted that the closing of plants representing significant sources of energy had accelerated a shortfall in power reserves, potentially with dire consequences.”  The article goes on to note upcoming problems in several of those midwestern states including Illinois, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado, all of whom, forecast power shortfalls and corresponding blackouts during peak demand hours principally due to plant closures and intermittent unreliable wind and solar.  The article also mentions the drought in California which will reduce hydro generation and suggest that, in itself, may well cause blackouts similar to those experienced last year.

Bundesbank warns Russian gas embargo would cost Germany 5 per cent in lost output

The Russian Ukraine war has exacerbated the global efforts to meet those COP-26 targets as the European Union has moved to stop purchasing Russian oil, natural gas and coal. Germany could see one of the largest impacts as they had become overly dependent on the supply of those fuels from Russia. Recently Bundesbank (Germany’s central bank) warned the embargo could knock 5% (US$195 billion) off of Germany’s GDP effectively creating a recession.  At the same time Germany has reactivated many of their old coal plants to ensure electricity supply certainty.  The latter will not ensure they avoid the falling GDP forecast from Bundesbank nor will it help Germany and the EU reach their “net-zero” emission targets as they will be replacing gas fired plants with coal which is much more emissions intensive. It should also be remembered by all, that Germany had not only closed their coal fired electricity plants but had also phased out their nuclear plants in favour of intermittent and unreliable wind and solar generation.

Kwarteng to classify natural gas as ‘green’ investment to support North Sea

Kwasi Kwarteng is the UK’s Business Secretary under Prime Minister Boris Johnson. One month ago he was quoted stating: “Net zero is the solution to the global gas crisis, not the cause. Expensive gas is the problem – cheap, clean, homegrown energy is the solution,”! The quote was from a speech he delivered at the Harvard Kennedy School.  Kwarteng is now planning on classifying “natural gas” as green and drilling for it in the North Sea as “environmentally sustainable”.  Pretty sure the “eco-warriors” around the world must be very upset about declaring “natural gas” as green and drilling for more is “environmentally sustainable”!

Not to worry about the above though, as right here in Ontario the OCAA (Ontario Clean Air Alliance) got a much different message recently.  The OCAA paid close attention to a recent debate amongst the leaders of four (New Blue Ontario Party and the Ontario Party were excluded) of the Provincial Parties invited to debate and the OCAA were delighted when they heard Doug Ford declare he “will not be happy until Ontario achieves a 100%  zero-carbon electricity grid”!  We should be pretty sure the Liberals, NDP and Green Party Leaders are fully on-board with Ford’s “happy” target!

What the foregoing suggests is that it doesn’t matter which side of the ocean you live on; politicians haven’t got a clue as to what the truth is!  Their preferences are driven by what they perceive voters’ favour and apparently, they haven’t a clue if “climate change” aka “global warming” is fact or fiction or what mankind’s influence on the climate actually is.

Stay tuned for Part 2 in this series!

Marc Patrone Show 960 AM Chatting about the WEF, Climate Change, etc. etc.

Marc had me on his show today (April 6, 2022) and we covered a lot of ground associated with the World Economic Forum, Climate Change, Carbon Taxes, etc. etc. and our chat also ventured to many places around the world during our time.

You can listen to our chat on the podcast starting at 33:44 and ending at 50:25.

ESG is Fully Endorsed by Public Sector Pension Plans

The Beatles song “Revolution” lyrics should be required reading for all the “woke” generation pushing the “net-zero” concept. When discovering something recently it brought to mind the words of that classic!  Pre-chorus 3 even had the following words: “But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow“!  

The ESG Revolution

We often discover, after it happens and behind the scenes; bureaucrats (federal, provincial and municipal) support politicians advocating for what they perceive as beneficial to them and do so, without regard for taxpayers obligated to pay the price for their indulgence.

Such was the case when unbeknown to most of us taxpayers those bureaucrats got together via eight publicly supported pension plans  (PPP) and in a press release dated November 25, 2020 united for a cause advocated by the Federal Liberal Party. The cause was their undated agreement to push for ESG (environmental, social and governance) factors when investing our taxpayer dollars (federal and provincial) in any future investments for the benefit of their member’s pensions.

What the foregoing meant was; those “PPP” agreed to impose ESG standards on publicly traded and private companies.  The impact would be on those companies ability to attract PPP as either shareholders or lenders for debt raising via bond issues, etc.  Those public sector pension plans at the time of the signing of the agreement held $1.6 trillion in assets which was close to what Canada’s GDP (gross domestic product) was in 2020 at US $1.57 trillion. A reflection on the power they hold over us lowly taxpayers!  The agreement is not only undated and mind boggling but also not in tune with most taxpayers as to how they should allocate our tax dollars that created their $1.6 trillion value.

The full text of the short but “undated” and compelling agreement follows:

Companies and investors must put sustainability and inclusive growth at the centre of economic recovery

COVID-19 continues to impose a huge toll on our daily lives, impacting families, businesses, public institutions and civil society worldwide. The pandemic and other tragic events of 2020 have revealed pre-existing business strengths and shortcomings with respect to social inequity, including systemic racism and environmental threats.

It is imperative we rebuild our economies in ways that create greater systemic resiliency and inclusive growth. The time to act is now, and each of us has a role to play. We call on companies and investment partners to help drive lasting change by placing sustainability at the centre of their planning, operations and reporting.

As CEOs of Canada’s eight largest pension plan investment managers, representing $1.6 trillion in assets under management, we are committed to creating more sustainable and inclusive growth by integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into our strategies and investment decisions. It is not only the right thing to do, it is an integral part of our duty to contributors and beneficiaries. Doing this will unlock opportunities and mitigate risks, supporting our mandates to deliver long-term risk-adjusted returns.

To deliver on our mandates, we require increased transparency from companies. How companies identify and address issues such as diversity and inclusion, human capital, board effectiveness and climate change can significantly contribute to value creation or erosion. Companies have an obligation to disclose their material business risks and opportunities to financial markets and should provide financially relevant, comparable and decision-useful information. While we recognize companies face a myriad of disclosure frameworks and requests, it is vital that they report relevant ESG data in a standardized way.

We ask that companies measure and disclose their performance on material, industry-relevant ESG factors by leveraging the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework to further standardize ESG-related reporting. While the SASB standards focus broadly on industry-relevant sustainability reporting, the TCFD framework calls for climate-specific disclosures across several reporting pillars (governance, strategy, risk, and metrics and targets). Both are useful to investors and informative to companies working to frame their ESG reporting.

We are confident the ability to successfully address and adapt to these 21st-century business risks and opportunities is a distinguishing feature of great companies. While for many this will require greater ambition than in the past, we believe companies demonstrating ESG-astute practices and disclosure will outperform over the long-term.

For our part, we continue to strengthen our own ESG disclosure and integration practices, and allocate capital to investments best placed to deliver long-term sustainable value creation.

Inspired by this historic opportunity to help confront the most urgent challenges facing our global community, we ask others committed to our vision to join us on this journey towards a more sustainable future.“   

The eight CEOs who signed the agreement represented the following public pension plans:

Alberta Investment Management Corporation, British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, Ontario Teachers Pension Plan and the Public Sector Pension Investment Board!

The reference to SASB and TCFD in the agreement suggests these two UN inspired creations from a 2004 letter sent by Secretary General Koffi Annan to 50 CEOs of major financial institutions have completely revised the way we have been measuring financial performance over the centuries. It suggests 2 + 2 no longer equals 4!  To pretend companies will become “great” by adopting ESG factors flies in the face of all logic. The “E” (environmental) in ESG is what the Mark Carney, Michael Bloomberg political fans and eco-warriors have focused on and if the punishment of the middle and lower classes continues under their direction and the politicians they have influenced, we should expect:

As the Beatles opined “You say you want a revolution”!

NB: The Washington based “Institute for Pension Fund Integrity” in a report concluded: “Although there are over $20 trillion in ESG assets under management, it lacks a standardized definition under which all firms can unite and under which regulators can address legitimate concerns.“  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about the Covid-19 pandemic?

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

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

Who owns Moderna, Pfizer and Tesla?

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

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

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

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

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