Parker Gallant Unmasks The Architects Of The Green Energy Scam

I was once again invited to be on the Marc Patrone show on radio station Newstalk Sauga 960 AM to discuss the recent event announcing the creation of the “Task Force for a Resilient Recovery”.  While the principal chat was about the foregoing Marc and I covered other related issues dealing with the energy sector.  It is a 12 minute segment posted here:

Parker Gallant Unmasks The Architects Of The Green Energy Scam

 

Ontario’s Bureaucrats and Liberal appointed justices have full control of the Ontario Energy Ministry

On May 1, 2020 an article penned by yours truly, outlined the OEB’s (Ontario Energy Board) concerns about how the Covid-19 pandemic will reduce revenue for OPG and Hydro One. The OEB instructed both to keep track of revenue losses for future rate application increases and to establish “deferral accounts” to keep track of those losses.

The OEB has done it again but this time their letter is aimed at all of the LDC’s (local distribution companies) telling them to keep track of losses related to the pandemic and to set up: “Account 1509 – Impacts Arising from the COVID-19 Emergency (Account).  Collecting information on the balances in the Account will inform the OEB about the impacts of the emergency on distributors”.  Needless to say, the projected losses could be significant should the LDC’s bad debts include significant businesses who fail as a fall-out of the pandemic.  While the dollar amounts in respect to either of the two OEB letters is presently unknown one should suspect they will be significant as the lock-down continues and many businesses may not survive and consumption falls.

The question arising is; will it be ratepayers impacted in the future or will the burden fall on taxpayers?  We should suspect the latter as a review of Ministerial Directives* from the Ford led government, up to this point, have transferred a lot of costs to taxpayers.  The latter includes the renamed “Fair Hydro Plan” launched by former Premier Wynne, now called the “Ontario Electricity Rebate” which negatively impacted last year’s budget to the tune of $5.6 billion. Other costs continue to accumulate due to the Green Energy Act (GEA) initiative instituted by the former governing Ontario Liberal Party and with reduced consumption will grow as recently pointed out, costing ratepayers $2 billion annually related to just the cost of industrial wind turbines (IWT).

Another recent initiative by the Ford government will eventually come back to bite ratepayers as they have decreed due to the pandemic the April GA (Global Adjustment) will be set for all Class B ratepayers at $115/MWh (megawatt hour) or $40/MWh less than what my friend Scott Luft estimates it would have been.  Class A ratepayers will see a similar deferment.  The initiative will carry through to the end of June 2020 meaning it potentially could amount to over $800 million to be recouped from ratepayers commencing January 2021 according to IESO.

As if the foregoing wasn’t enough, the only significant IWT cancelled by the Ford government, potentially saving ratepayers $450 million over the 20 year contract, was just reinstated by a ruling of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice!

The Nation Rise wind power project is a 100-megawatt (MW) IWT project, which I have written extensively on. It is unneeded, as it will simply add to our surplus generation.  Additionally, the original contracted party, EDPR of Portugal (partially owned by state owned Chinese companies) sold off controlling interest to a Quebec based company (Axium) run by former senior executives of SNC Lavalin.

In examining the Justices hearing the appeal and overturning its cancellation it is striking to note one of them was Supernumerary Justice Harriet Sachs married to Clayton Ruby.  Clayton Ruby is a well-respected lawyer who has been quite active in promoting renewable energy and appears to be a firm believer in “climate change”.  Mr. Ruby has even signed the Leap Manifesto which makes major improbable and unproven claims such as: “The latest research shows it is feasible for Canada to get 100% of its electricity from renewable resources within two decades; by 2050 we could have a 100% clean economy.” A picture of Mr. Ruby and others who signed the Manifesto can be found on page 39 in the November/December 2015 issue of the Monitor.  The Monitor was issued by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.   Should Mr. Ruby desire, he could easily find many recent research papers that would dispel many of the Leap Manifesto claims.  Based on Mr. Ruby’s beliefs, it should be expected they would be chatted about with his spouse, Justice Sachs, over the kitchen table or a family event, so the question arises; does she share his beliefs?

Looking back to October 2013 Justice Sachs was to sit as the judge on a “mock trial” of environmentalist David Suzuki related to a live theatre performance referenced as “The Trial of David Suzuki” but she withdrew as Sun News host Ezra Levant raised “queries on Judge Sachs and her possible bias.”

The foregoing raises the question on whether she continues to retain the suggested bias and if so, why did she not relinquish her role in this matter or why didn’t the other two justices suggest she do so?

It is obvious the mess created by the former governments of the province continue to weigh heavily on the ratepayers/taxpayers and the Covid-19 pandemic is exacerbating the burden.

Once the pandemic recedes the Ford government needs to take serious action to correct this mess in the Energy Ministry and not simply transfer the costs to taxpayers.

 

*The Ford government has to this point issued less than 10 directives which moved costs to taxpayers whereas the McGuinty/Wynne led Ontario Liberal governments issued over 150 directives to the OEB, IESO, Hydro One and the OPG and the bulk of them have and continue to cause electricity rates to increase.

Climate Change Activists and their Strange Bedfellows

For a couple of decades, individuals and environmental groups around the world voiced the view that AGW (anthropogenic global warming), now referenced as “climate change”, was an upcoming catastrophic event, unless we humans curb emissions of CO2. An increase of earth’s average temperature of 1.5 degrees by the year 2100 forecast by the UNIPCC, would reputedly destroy mankind.  Politicians around the world bought into the premise; it was mankind causing the climate to change!

Those politicians, inspired by eco-warriors insisted; we must stop using fossil fuels or we are doomed.

Those who weren’t completely sold on the “premise” (this writer included) as time went on, lost faith in the forecasts and the uptake of the pseudo-science the UNIPCC and others proclaimed. More and more evidence of their bad forecasts were slowly laid bare. The claims made; looked to be nothing more than a giant “Ponzi scheme” or simply ignorance among those screaming the loudest.

Politicians around the world however, bought into the claims! Those politicians agreed technology like; wind turbines, biomass, ethanol, solar cells, electric cars, etc. were a way to end fossil fuel usage and save mankind from the catastrophe.  Politicians rushed to buy into the foregoing even though the technology associated with most of it was developed in the late 1800’s or early 1900’s.  Legislation, regulations, mandates, etc. were passed with increasing frequency to achieve the goals set by the eco-warriors! Electricity rates and other fuel costs shot up in countries where government subsidies were mandated and taxpayers paid for them. Those actions have cost trillions of dollars globally!

Needless to say the push to discard fossil fuels in Canada reached an epiphany in the minds of the eco-warriors as Canadians elected a minority Liberal government last fall.  Support would come from the NDP, the Green Party and the Bloc!  The election results would surely deliver their objectives!

Suddenly however, Canada and the rest of the world were caught up in the Covid-19 pandemic and “climate change” was relegated to an issue well down the list of priorities. The pandemic however, didn’t discourage those eco-warriors as they joined hands and sent dozens of letters to parliament claiming “climate change” needed to be treated as the next major catastrophic event.

Even as government deficits climbed those eco-warriors and their corporate compatriots such as CanWEA joined together. Robert Hornung of CanWEA even had the gall to suggest on March 24, 2020 to “Bloomberg Law”* that: “Among possible renewable energy measures, the federal government could speed up the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s construction of green projects, Robert Hornung, President of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, said.” The group also suggested the government increase the amount of renewable energy it consumes.” The same article quotes Chris Severson-Baker, Alberta’s regional director at the Pembina Institute in respect to Alberta Premier Kenny’s ask of “the federal government to suspend any new environmental regulations, including any increase in a national carbon tax.”  Kenny’s request upset Severson-Baker who said; “It’s total opportunism to talk about targeting those things”.  Apparently, he believes it’s OK to tax us all while creating further unemployment in the middle of this economic meltdown while our governments spend our future taxes by the tens of billions of dollars and many companies lose their ability to survive. 

Very recently eco-warriors have become totally silent, perhaps due to the recent release of Michael Moore’s documentary; Planet of the Humans on Earth Day (April 22nd).  Since its “free” release, just four days ago on YouTube it has had almost 2.4 million views.

The documentary delves into the relationship between eco-warriors and certain capitalists such as Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, Al Gore, Jeremy Grantham, GM, Goldman Sachs, Koch Brothers, and several others.  Along the way it discloses how both groups benefited by feeding false information to the media and to those of us absorbing the messages repeated by the MSM.

The film dispels the reputed benefits of industrial wind turbines, solar panels, ethanol fuels, biomass, EVs and their batteries and highlights either the incompetence and or lies spread by eco-warriors in their push to save the world. The film brings out the fact those sources of energy actually do more harm than good for the environment and have little if any effect on emissions.

The fact the film connects eco-warriors to the corporate elite suggests the collaboration is really about extracting monies from the general population more than it was about saving the planet. To this writer it certainly appears to have been one of the biggest “Ponzi schemes” ever perpetrated but will we ever know the truth?

*It is worth noting Bloomberg Law is a part of the Bloomberg Industry Group founded by Michael Bloomberg the former Democratic Presidential candidate and multi-billionaire, mentioned in Michael Moore’s documentary “Planet of the Humans”.

We are in the midst of an Eco-charities panic

It seems readily apparent the ENGO (environmental non-government organizations) are in a panic mode as the Covid-19 pandemic has swept the purported “climate emergency” from the front pages to the back pages of the MSM. Their concerns are no doubt focused on possible outcomes that will impact them significantly such as:

1.Their fans/donors may be distracted or become unemployed due to the pandemic!

2.Their fans may not have the available dollars to donate to the cause(s) they tout;  to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 or 2050 (pick your target) and save the world from a 1.5 degree “average” temperature increase by the year 2100.

3.Those eco-charities who pushing  the “carbon tax” may find the Liberal government will have no money to hand out via grants to them as they did in the past!

A recent example of the panic was evident in a tweet by Tzeporah Berman who shouted out: “It’s now been two weeks since Finance Minister Bill Morneau told reporters that a Big Oil bailout was coming in “hours, possibly days” – and details still haven’t been announced. It’s clear that our pressure is working. You can chip in here to keep it growing:  xxxxx.  Thanks to the growing public outcry around a Big Oil bailout, we’re now hearing reports that the Liberal party is increasingly divided around what to do. This is encouraging, but the government still has the power to announce a massive handout to oil and gas companies at any time – and they haven’t ruled it out. It’s time to pull out all the stops. With our friends at Leadnow, we’ve come up with a plan to splash our message all over the CBC news website, at a time when millions of Canadians are consuming online news like never before. Just several months ago Ms. Berman was reputedly awarded a $2 million prize by The Climate Breakthrough Project so she personally could afford to pay up for the CBC ad to push her anti oil and gas agenda.

Recently Ms. Berman* wrote an article for the National Observer wherein she stated: “our government pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into fossil fuel subsidies years after commitments made at the G20 that those would be phased out.“  Apparently Tzeporah Berman and her loyal followers are completely unaware that none other than the Chair of the Ecofiscal Commission, Chris Ragan, interviewed by Steve Paikin on TVO’s “The Agenda” was asked the question: ”What about subsidizing fossil fuels, what we do to the tune of $1 billion per year?” Ragan’s response:  “We as a country do not have explicit fossil fuel subsidies.”  Ragan was recently appointed as a Director of the Canadian Institute of Climate Choices, funded with $20 million of our tax dollars.  The Ecofiscal Commission recommended the “carbon tax” in Canada should be $210/tonne to reduce emissions so we should expect the same to come from the CICC!

There are many others working to shut down the oil and gas sector. Several groups of ENGO have taken to writing letters to Prime Minister “sunny daze” himself, begging him to shut the sector down:

Green Budget Coalition 

The Green Budget Coalition is made up of 22 of the eco-charities pushing “environmental sustainability” and they penned a letter April 8, 2020 to the Prime Minister, the Deputy PM and the Finance Minister.  The letter suggests:  “Large-scale financial interventions designed with climate, ecosystem, social and economic resilience in mind will improve Canadians’ well-being in the wake of the pandemic, not only in economic terms, but also in terms of the health, social and environmental benefits of reduced GHG emissions, employment in a more equitable and sustainable economy, and flourishing biodiversity. “They also suggest we are in a “climate emergency” stating:  “consider the next steps in Canada’s response to COVID-19 in the context of the unrelenting concurrent crises that threaten our well-being in the long term: the climate emergency and the precipitous decline in biodiversity largely driven by habitat loss.”

Climate Action Network

The Climate Action Network has 105 members and they too have penned a letter to PM Trudeau and CC-ed it to “Federal Cabinet Ministers”!  Collectively they claim to have 1.3 million members; or about the same number as those who just became unemployed due to the pandemic. Their letter states: “The federal government has the opportunity with this stimulus package to immediately and directly support workers in Alberta and across the country while also investing in what is needed to grow and support a low carbon economy, and the kind of economy that can weather storms.”  The letter goes on to state: “Oil and gas companies are already heavily subsidized in Canada and the public cannot keep propping them up with tax breaks and direct support forever.”  It appears they too, do not believe one of their ilk, ie: Chris Ragan, (see above), who stated “We as a country do not have explicit fossil fuel subsidies.”

Clean Energy Canada

Clean Energy Canada describe themselves as “a climate and clean energy program within the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University” and sent off an “open letter” to Justin Trudeau.  The letter is signed by 11 groups beyond the SFU including CanWEA and CanSIA whose members enjoy the benefits of long-term contracts in Ontario paying above market prices to generate electricity leading to a doubling of electricity rates under the Ontario Liberals. One unfamiliar signatory was the “Canada Cleantech Alliance” which doesn’t appear to have a website and seem to be an offshoot of a US based association located in Seattle.  Why they signed the letter is unknown! The letter pushes the same agenda:  “twin objectives of moving quickly and strategically to get Canada and Canadians working again in the near-term, while enhancing our national commitment to creating a diversified, low-carbon economy, we make three overarching recommendations for ensuring a resilient recovery.“

Recommendations include: “any relief for the fossil fuel sector and/or fossil-fuel reliant platforms which are facing long-term structural challenges, must have stringent conditions to focus on workers, decarbonization and diversification, and not impede the transition to a clean energy economy.

And

these unprecedented investments pave the way to a more sustainable, net-zero emission economy and avoid measures that lock us into a high-carbon future or risk stranded assets. Periods of high unemployment and low interest rates are precisely the right time to focus on new low-carbon investments and infrastructure, including those required to support and accelerate the transition to clean energy.“

And

“We can use them to scale up investment in energy retrofits, renewable power production, storage and transmission, clean fuel production, electric vehicle and electric vehicle charging infrastructure deployment and measures to further green government.

The associations and the “clean energy program” within SFU signing this letter depend on tax dollars and favourable contracts from federal, provincial and municipal governments and seem to believe the private sector are bottomless pits of tax dollars that will fund their recommendations.

It appears from this vantage point, the numerous eco-charities trying to further influence the Liberal government are worried!  The flow of grants from the Federal ministries and donations from the “foundations” supporting them may slow or dry up. They will then be forced to find a real job in competition with those they denigrate in the oil and gas sector and its supply chain.

Their claimed “charitable” work is a misnomer serving only to harm this once thriving part of the Canadian economy contributing so much to Canada’s employment and tax base.

The time has come to change the definition of a “charity” to eliminate those bloodsuckers!

*Berman’s husband Chris Hatch, is a “reporter” for the National Observer and it receives funds from several of the charities who want to shut down Alberta’s oil and gas sector.

 

Have the Tides Finally Turned?

As we descend deeper into the pandemic caused by Covid-19 one wonders how it’s affecting those eco-charities pushing the “climate emergency and the reputed damage caused by fossil fuels. They claim; we must eliminate carbon emissions by 2050 or the world will face a disaster.

The coronavirus pandemic sweeping the world at present has meant the “climate emergency” eco-charities have been screaming about for the past several decades, has been relegated to the back pages of both the MSM and the virtual internet community.  It is now a “back of mind” issue for almost all Canadians today, as the impact of a real emergency has taken hold.

One wonders if the decades, of this reputed emergency have passed and signifies we have wizened up to what many perceive as an unprecedented “Ponzi scheme?”  Only time will tell!

Tides Canada, a charity with US links

One of the larger and more aggressive charities to have pushed the “climate emergency” agenda in Canada is Tides Canada, an outgrowth of a US charity founded in 1976.  The US charity in 2018 had revenue of $548 million and handed out (granted) 54% or only $296 million of it.  The Canadian arm of Tides is two charities; Tides Canada Foundation and Tides Canada Initiatives Foundation. Tides Canada was founded in the year 2000 according to their website.

A review of their latest CRA filings for the two charities show collective revenues of $35.884 million versus collective revenues of $7.416 million in the prior year.  So, revenues were up by $28.468 million however, $7 million of that was simply a donation from Tides Canada Foundation to Tides Canada Initiatives Foundation. The actual increase in revenue was therefore up $21.458 million or 289.3%.  From examination of the $7 million transferred it appears a lot of it was destined for First Nations grants which raises the question; were those grants connected with the rail blockades aimed at stopping the Coastal Gaslink pipeline?

If one discounts the inter-foundation transfer and looks at where the $28.468 million actually came from you discover, $5.431 million or 18.8% came from Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments,  $7.404 million (25,6%) came from outside Canada, 25.3% or $7.298 million came from other charities and only $3.445 million or 11.9% were actual donations from parties who received charitable receipts.

Reviewing Tide’s donations, the two foundations paid out $12.7 million in grants including those paid to First Nations. The usual cabal of eco-charities (focused on the elimination of the Canadian oil and gas sector) received grants from Tides and included; Environmental Defence, the Sierra Club, the David Suzuki Foundation, Pembina, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, etc. etc. Total grant payouts represented 43.9% of the $28.868 million of adjusted gross revenues. To this writer, that suggests an inefficient charity with well paid staff.  Along those lines an examination of the CRA compensation report for the top 10 employed by the foundations suggests an average salary of about $118K each.

Eco-warrior concerns

The pandemic seems to be causing angst elsewhere amongst the proponents of the “climate emergency” with one article suggesting that “EU carbon market prices are plummeting as a result of the economic shutdown.” The article noted as of March 25th the price had dropped by 40% and a Polish representative called for scrapping it altogether even though it generated €2.2 billion in auctioning revenues last year for Poland.  If there are low levels of emissions, which is the current situation with business shut down, companies who normally emit them don’t have to buy carbon credits.  A recent article in January 2020 stated “The European carbon market – the world’s largest by volume and value – rose in worth by 30% to €169 billion.”  Many of those European country’s governments will suffer severe revenue shortages as those invisible emissions decline.  As a result, it may cause them to either increase other forms of taxation or reduce spending. As an aside, the emissions reductions may also negatively affect agricultural production and drive food costs higher due to reduced crop yields.

In the US an emerging concern has been amplified by AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) with them saying on March 19ththe global pandemic is putting $43 billion of wind industry investments and payments at risk.”  As explained in the Power Magazine article the biggest concern is not about the people affected by Covid-19 it’s about the delays that will occur in erecting industrial wind turbines.  The delay will result in “expiring tax credits” so AWEA have appealed to Congress.

AWEA in its appeal to Congress said that developers of wind energy projects have been moving forward “based on what appeared the safe assumption that their projects would qualify for the federal production or investment tax credits”.  With those tax credits expiring, delays in completing those projects could push them past deadlines to qualify for the credits.”

Not surprisingly AWEA have got the Democrats on side as the article goes on to state: “Leaders of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition on Thursday said they will push for tax credits for renewable energy in any stimulus legislation. Democratic Reps. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, Doris Matsui of California, and Paul Tonko of New York, co-chairs of the committee, in a statement said, “Our members pushed for these credits in the end-of-year funding package and will continue to fight for them in this round of economic stimulus.”

It is discerning to realize; the eco-warriors, the carbon market traders, the wind and solar renewable energy companies and left leaning politicians continue to gang up on hard working taxpayers and now as the world faces a true emergency they have the gall to ignore the pandemic and instead continue to push their agenda at the expense of the citizens of the free world.

It’s time for the cabal to take off their blinkers and to understand, “the tides have turned”!

This Ponzi scheme must come to an end!

During the pandemic Federal and Provincial Governments should save real “charitable” jobs not those related to “climate change”

One of the fallouts resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic as recently reported was: “Canada’s charities say they have begun laying off staff and shutting down their services, which are usually in high demand during economic downturns, as the sector feels the financial sting from COVID-19.”

What is a “charity?

As most of us know the institutions referred to in Canada as charities, has changed, as much wider regulations were brought in by Prime Minister Trudeau’s government. The change now allows charities to “carry out unlimited “public policy dialogue and development activities”.  This means they are free to spend money on partisan issues favouring political parties. The charities of the “climate change” religion love the change and many of them have expanded those partisan activities.  Many of us however don’t think charities of their ilk are what we feel are real charities!

Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines the word “charity” as, 1. benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity and 2. generosity and helpfulness esp. toward the needy or suffering.

These aren’t charities!

Back in 2014 the CRA (Canadian Revenue Agency) was investigating seven* (7) environmental charities however as soon as the Liberal Party was swept into power the investigation was cancelled.  Reviewing the most recent CRA filings and a news report (Pembina) for those seven charities one discovers in the latest year they received $7,449,747 in grants or contracts ($183,000) from the government.  If the foregoing isn’t disturbing enough, their latest CRA filings indicate they collectively received $22,107,186 in donations from other charities.  It is difficult to understand exactly how that almost $30 million is somehow remotely associated with the Merriam Webster definition of what constitutes a “charity”!

The other galling piece of information about the almost $30 million of charitable donations that “group of seven” received is; some of it came from charities owned by the Province such as the Trillium Foundation and the Greenbelt Foundation which are both dependent on funding from Ontario taxpayers.  Gross revenue for the seven was just under $39 million.  Six of the seven charities (Pembina attributed no salary costs to their charity in CRA flings) reported salaries for their top 10 employees in a range from $40K to $350K and the average salary of each of the 54 of them, would appear to be just shy of $100K per annum.  Those salaries are not what one would expect from those who are benevolent and want to help the needy,

It should also be noted those seven “environmental” charities are just a few of the thousands of environmental groups active in Canada and registered with the CRA as charities.  Many of them can be found on “RECEN” (The Canadian Environmental Network) and many others can be found listed on the Canadian Directory for Environmental Groups. Additionally a number of major corporations such as TD Bank and Suncor have established charities that hand out money to many environmental charities such as the Clean Economy Fund (a Bruce Lourie creation) who in turn hand it out to other environmental charities.  Another example is “Evergreen” a Pan-Canadian Expert collaborator who received  $375K from the Suncor Foundation and additional funds from MaRS Discovery District. The latter (a provincially owned charity) also received funds from Suncor.  It’s become a game of “follow the money” for a lot of us taxpayers.

How Dare They!

The Federal and Provincial governments in Canada need to take some time and speak with those who are engaged in real philanthropy and stop calling climate change activates, charitable institutions.

Save the jobs of real charitable workers and let the eco-warriors figure out how to keep their lights on!

*The David Suzuki Foundation, Tides Canada, West Coast Environmental Law, The Pembina Foundation, Environmental      Defence, Equiterre and the Ecology Action Centre

MaRS Discovery District, Greenbelt Foundation and Ontario Trillium Foundation redefine the word “charity”

With all that is going on in Ontario and the rest of the world associated with the pandemic perhaps it is time for some of our politicians to look inward and try to determine if their past creations make sense and if those creations should be tossed aside.  The result might be to save some hard-earned tax dollars that could be re-deployed to cope with some of today’s Covid-19 fallout.  This looks at just three of those creations.

All three of the captioned companies were creations of the Ontario provincial government and annually receive tens of millions of taxpayer funds which they then reputedly hand out in a “charitable” way.

Their annual reports filed for just the year ended March 31, 2019 indicates they collectively received almost $155 million from the province and $3.7 million from the Federal government. Those funds in turn supposedly resulted in $153 million expended on “charitable activities”.

It’s unclear how many employees the three charities have in total but a review of the recently released Ontario “Sunshine List” indicates 78 employees made the list and received just over $12.7 million in compensation indicating, the “average” salary received was just shy of $163,000 each.*

While the Ontario Trillium Foundation appears incorporated as a “not-for-profit” both MaRS and the Greenbelt are registered charities and their files can be found on the CRA Charities list under the names of “Greenbelt Foundation” and “MaRS Discovery District”.  Let’s examine the three!

Greenbelt Foundation:

In Greenbelt’s filings with the CRA for the March 31, 2019 year-end they provide a list of other “charities” whom they granted funds to and on that list are several towns, municipalities and even Ryerson University.  Also, on that list can be found donations made to the David Suzuki Foundation (revenue of $12.7 million in the most recent year-end), Environmental Defence (annual revenue $3.7 million) and the World Wildlife Fund (annual revenue of almost $25 million).  The other amusing (not for taxpayers) thing about Greenbelt is they spent $564,854 on advertising and promotion and received a miserly $2,929 in actual charitable donations for which they issued tax receipts. What the foregoing infers is our tax dollars are being wasted and also handed out to help charities (we may not willingly support) and municipalities but we taxpayers have no say in the matter.

MaRS Discovery District:

In the case of MaRS we should recall that it was $50.5 million of Ontario taxpayer dollars that first funded them when Dalton McGuinty was the Premier as noted in a 2005 Press Release.  Another $20 million came from the Federal Government.  Since then the province has annually provided them with $20/30 million and the Federal Government with a few million more.  Additionally most will recall the taxpayers back in 2014 bailed them out of their “Phase 2” $344 million expansion.  In their latest CRA filing they record spending $653 thousand on advertising and promotion and raised $528 thousand for which they issued charitable receipts.  Better than Greenbelt but, they still didn’t cover their “A and D spending”!  Major expenditures included $7.5 million on office supplies, $4.4 million on consulting and professional fees, $23.1 million on compensation, $12,3 million on management and administration and $14.4 million on “other expenditures”!  They then have the audacity to suggest and report $40.6 was spent on “charitable activities” but for some unknown reason are not required to report who the beneficiaries were of their largess with our tax dollars.  Needless to say, they lost $3.4 million yet they have 62 people on the recent Sunshine list! Many of those** they funded or provided with their “expert” advice and our tax dollars are reputedly connected to the MaRS “cleantech” sector.

Ontario Trillium Foundation:

As noted above the Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF) is not registered as a charity however, in their most recent year-end financial statement they record having pledged $108,148,100 in grants to numerous parties.  Their year-end, March 31, 2019, discloses over 410 grants averaging approximately $263,000 with several spread over 2 or 3 years and many of them are true “charities”.  Never-the-less sprinkled among them are grants to the likes of Tides Canada (annual revenue of $35.9 million) and the IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) with annual revenue of $29.8 million and a few smaller ones. Donations to other “climate change” charities in the past were much higher and went to: David Suzuki Foundation, Pembina, WWF, Environmental Defence, Sierra Club, etc. etc. Perhaps those now responsible for handing out our hard-earned tax dollars at OTF realized the meaning of what a “charitable institution” really is? Despite the foregoing it should be up to us taxpayers to pick the charity we would support which would eliminate the approximately $30 million of expenses they incur for administration, compensation, etc. Let us decide where some of our taxes should go!

At the present time the three “charities”, briefly reviewed, are providing no meaningful contribution to the pandemic and instead are consuming tax dollars that may be better applied to keep the province from collapsing in an economic heap.  Those 78 employees on the “Sunshine” list could be redeployed to actually contribute to the real charitable activities currently needed.

Our governments must make decisions now to consider our economic future and not penalize our younger generation by creating insurmountable debt.

*Full disclosure.  The writer is a member of a small charitable organization (40 members) and each and every member is paid absolutely NOTHING.

**Represented by 56 “startups” whom MaRS reputedly helped to reach that stage.

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices should “fact check”

Back in 1989 (thirty-one years ago) Noel Brown, a senior UN environmental official told the Associated Pressentire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” Brown noted the Maldives would be under water as the oceans would rise by three feet. While the Maldives weren’t mentioned in the recent report from the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC), “rising sea levels” were; as one of, “the main hazards and conditions on the way to 2050.”

The year 2000 has come and gone but to the best of my knowledge no nations have disappeared due to rising sea levels. The Maldives recently announced they are opening four new airports in the current year.  The lack of them being under water however, hasn’t deterred the numerous “experts” involved with the CICC.  Higher sea level concerns for Atlantic Canada and BC were also included in the report by the Canadian Council of Academies (CCA) in their July 2019 report; the forerunner of the CICC’s report.  As pointed out in an earlier article CCA’s disclaimer under “Conclusions” saw them opting out of everything forecast in their report.  Despite the opt out position taken by the CCA the media only focused on the disastrous message.  Reuters noted the CCA report was a follow up to one from Minister McKenna’s ministry and reported:  “Canada’s unique geographic, environmental, and social identity shapes the hazards that it faces and its exposure to climate-related risks,” Eric M. Meslin, president and CEO of the CCA, said in the press release.”

Returning to the issue of “flooding” the CICC’s report on page 19 touts the Netherlands for their leading-edge ability to control flooding “even though a quarter of the country is below sea level.”  What those “experts” failed to note is “The low-lying Netherlands has been fighting back water for more than 1,000 years, when farmers built the first dykes.“  A search turned up an article confirming “flooding” in the Netherlands is not a recent event caused by the effects C0 2 on the atmosphere or melting artic ice!

The CICC’s report also highlighted severe flooding in Thailand in 2011 as if it was a one-off event.They ignored the probable cause which had nothing to do with “climate change”!  Had they looked back to 1942 they would have discovered a more severe flood and a YouTube video  highlighting the damage before “global warming”, the “climate crisis” or “increased emissions” was even a concept. Again, a simple search on the web by the CICC “experts” would have generated information as to why the 2011 flood occurred. One they may have found was a report by Richard Meehan, a civil engineer and adjunct faculty at Stanford University.  Mr. Meehan’s biography notes he “began his career designing and building irrigation and flood control works in Thailand in the 1960s”.

Mr. Meehan’s report notes: “Though monetary damages in the 2011 flood were unprecedented, the flood itself was not an extreme natural event, hydrological statistics variously suggesting a 30 to 75 year return period for a similar flood.”  The report states the reason for the monetary damages was essentially because “of poorly drained swampy lands on the lower Chao Phraya floodplain, including vast tracts of former swamps and riceland now occupied by very large industrial “estates” (or industrial parks in western terms), each the size of a city and home to hundreds of modern manufacturing plants developed in the 1970s and after.”  The message is clear: don’t build homes or industries in flood prone areas or at some point in the future the damages from a flood will be costly to you and/or your insurer!

The Charting our Course report does sprinkle in some benefits to “global warming” such as: “parts of Canada could benefit from warmer temperatures. Warmer winters could, for example, result in fewer cold-related deaths and illnesses and lower heating costs for households and businesses. Warmer temperatures in spring, summer, and fall could also open new tourism opportunities that previously did not exist.”

The following paragraph in the report however dispels those benefits by stating: “any benefits in a high-emissions scenario are likely temporary and short-lived. Benefits diminish as extreme climate events become more common and intense. Fewer deaths due to extreme cold are offset by more deaths from extreme heat*. Savings in heating bills are offset by increased use of air-conditioners in the summer.

It is interesting the word “likely” is used as it signals the 79 “experts” spending $20 million of our tax dollars are not really convinced those “high-emissions” will actually cause the damages they profess!

Despite the foregoing our senses should tell us the “experts” will ultimately recommend we need much higher carbon taxes to save the world from the likely “climate crisis”.

They might change their mind if they actually did proper research and “fact checked” their conclusions!

*Debunked in:  The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices is “Charting our Course”

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices says it louder

Should one read a report titled; “Canada’s Top Climate Change Risks” issued July 2019 by the “Expert Panel” on “Climate Change Risks and Adaptation Potential” you would probably think the “Charting our Course” report recently issued by the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC) was an update but it wasn’t!  What a comparison of the two reports highlight is words spoken by the former Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, who said: “if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it,”.  The latest CICC report exemplifies her quote and us taxpayers have provided the CICC with $20 million to ensure we “totally believe it”!

How many times can you flog a dead horse?

The first report’s “Expert Panel” are part of the “Canadian Council of Academies”. The council, launched in 2002, has managed to survive on $45 million of our tax dollars for the past 18 years. They are required to produce five reports annually when directed by the Federal Government.  Their report on Canada’s climate change risks came about as a result of a direction from the Treasury Board of Canada.  Seven (7) individuals on CCA’s “expert panel” and “workshop participants” are a part of CICC’s “expert” group and another eight (8) of those experts at the CICC were also cited as references in the CCA’s report.  One of those was Blair Feltmate, Chair of the Intact Centre at Waterloo University. Needless to say, both reports lean heavily on the insurance industries information about how “climate change” has increased insurance claims.  Catastrophes are forecast in both reports and similar comparisons are made to past events blaming them on “climate change”. The latter includes the Fort McMurray wildfires with estimated insurance claims of $1.4 billion. The CBC reported on the fire stating: “Provincial wildfire investigators have established that the fire was most likely the result of “human activity.”

On page 2 of the CCA’s report they have a map of Canada and have highlighted 10 of “Canada’s Top Climate Change Risks” and one of them is: “Lower Great Lakes water levels, affecting shipping, hydropower production, and recreation”.  As noted above the CCA report was published in July 2019 two years after Ontarians were told Lake Ontario had just experienced a “100-year flood”. Even worse flooding occurred in 2019 setting new records.  Apparently the “experts” involved in preparing the report failed to absorb the well-publicized news at that time and said nothing about “Plan 2014”!

Akin to the foregoing, CCA’s report contained statements such as: “Houses located in a floodplain, for instance, face greater risk due to their heightened exposure.”  Hardly enlightening news!

As if to excuse the diatribe spewed by the CCA expert’s report, their “Conclusions” had this to say:

Assessments of the risks posed by climate change are subject to many sources of uncertainty. Climate projections and modelling results provide an envelope of possible futures associated with different GHG emissions trajectories, but the exact path of global emissions and the full implications for the climate, combined with other natural and anthropogenic processes, remain unknown.

The CCA report therefore concludes with total disclosure they have no faith in anything contained in the prior 59 pages of their report.  Perhaps this is why former Minister McKenna took the next step to create the Canadian Institute for Climate Change and handed them $20 million of our tax dollars for a report supporting her views.

She obviously wanted her minions to “say it louder”!

Stay tuned for more.

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices is “Charting our Course”

The first in this series provided a glimpse of how the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC) came to be, via a $20 million taxpayer grant by the Federal Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and disclosed how it had issued its first report titled, “Charting our Course”.

If one bothers to Google “Charting our Course” (the name of the first report from the CICC), you get over 24,000 hits and one of them is a Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial report from 2011 which was their Climate Change Action Plan 2011.  Included in it was a big push for the Muskrat Falls project which is in process of being built but is more than double the original $6.2 billion budget (current estimate is $12.7 billion).  As a result, recent media articles have noted the federal government is stepping up to bail Newfoundland out but no firm details have been forthcoming as yet.

One should hope the title choice of the first report by the CICC will not result in the same effect on Canada as the 2011 report had on Newfoundland but don’t count on it.

We shouldn’t try to become the Venezuela of the G7 because of recommendations that will be made by the CICC but from the rhetoric in their version of “Charting our Course” they appear determined to reduce or eliminate our oil and gas output at a high cost.

Needless to say, there is lots of scary stuff in this report but they have missed or distorted facts such as: “Canada will not be immune. Our coastal cities will be swamped by rising seas, threatening property and infrastructure. In the face of more frequent and more severe fire and floods, insurance premiums are poised to rise dramatically, making home insurance unaffordable for many Canadians.” Looks like they are setting us up for rising insurance costs from those rising seas and severe fires.

Hmm, surely its simply co-incidental the CEO of CICC, Kathy Bardswick, is the former President and CEO of The Co-operators Group Ltd., (5th largest Canadian property/casualty insurance company) and Blair Feltmate sits on the CICC “Expert Panel”.  Feltmate is Head, Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation,  University of Waterloo; funded by donations from Intact Financial Corporation, the #1. Canadian property/casualty insurance company as noted in a recent Insurance Business Canada magazine.  As another coincidence, Feltmate was called out for his remarks on CBC radio about distorted flood claims by the CBC’s Ombudsman who noted “the CBC report had “failed to comply with journalistic standards” in assessing and reporting on the industry’s claims.”

The CICC report delves into the economics of the UNIPCC forecasted temperature increase in an obtuse way presumably meant to obscure its intent on shutting down the oil and gas sector. As an example, the report notes: “Much of Canada’s economy—and the prosperity it generates—depends on sectors that export emissions intensive products and commodities, such as oil and gas and cement.”  While oil and gas are major exports (at present) it should be noted 2018 cement exports were an unimpressive $536.6 million. Total exports in 2018 were $521.5 billion so cement was 1/10th of 1% of total exports.  To put the foregoing in context, Canada’s coal exports in 2018 were $7.5 billion (97% metallurgical) and automobiles and parts exported were over $60 billion.  One would think all those “experts” signed on to the CICC could locate a better “emission” related addition to oil and gas.

As if to make the foregoing argument ironic, the report claims the cleantech sector would benefit stating; “Meanwhile, conventional sectors, such as mining and forestry, could benefit from an unprecedented increase in global demand for raw materials.”  This would suggest they believe the mining and forestry sector are “cleantech” and somehow “emissions free”.  A strange claim!

Another part of the report says: “Fewer deaths due to extreme cold are offset by more deaths from extreme heat.” A little research on the part of the authors and peer reviewers of this claim would have found a fact based study that unequivocally states the opposite:  The following chart from the Lancet Study from 2015 shows the CICC claim to be completely false!

Figure thumbnail gr2

Fraction of all-cause mortality attributable to moderate and extreme hot and cold temperature by country

The foregoing study, completed by 22 individuals with doctorates stated: “We analysed 74,225,200 deaths in various periods between 1985 and 2012.“ As the chart notes the analysis covered 13 countries and the results clearly show moderate and extreme cold are responsible for 15 to 20 times more deaths than moderate or extreme heat.

Why do the “experts” associated with the CICC distort and ignore facts unless their sole purpose is to convince us we need a higher “carbon tax”!

This “unparalleled collaboration of experts from across the country” seem unwilling to identify facts but are happy “Charting our Course” to economic disaster while utilizing our tax dollars!

Will the eventual outcome result in Canada becoming Canazuela?

NB:  Stay tuned for more on the CICC’s report.