We, stalwart few, went; we saw the typical Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP) bamboozlers poster board circuit; we anti-delphied this particularly odious form of “public consultation” with practiced ease.
As was the case at the LTEP 2013 they merely feign listening, but now they are also trying to pretend the big expensive green energy elephant, though “suspended”, is not still in the room. They also try to ignore the fact the awakening elephant to the south of us is about to stomp all over the climate change hoax and just won’t be taxing carbon…what a circus!
One Wind Warrior was amused to determine the near perfect ignorance of the assembled climate-tackling energy contortionists on the major greenhouse gas… which is water vapour, not the unjustly maligned CO2 and especially not Carbon which is, after all, a solid. IESO high wire guy was hung out to dry with his convictions. Complimented on his forthright use of the term “global warming”, instead of the sneaky hiatus-hiding “climate change”, he was nonetheless schooled on the role of CO2 in maintaining life on this planet, the dearth of “climate scientists” per se pre 2013 and, as astronaut Jack Schmidtt concisely put it, “‘consensus’ merely represents the absence of definitive science,”
The Wal Mart style greeter, an Assistant to a Deputy Minister, was treated to a lengthy and detailed “we told you so” by another veteran of many battles against windbaggers and purveyors of snake oil climate remedies.
Such a tragic oration could actually start way back prior to Ontario’s Green Energy Act because there were sound public objections to early wind developments, such as Wolfe Island and Prince Windfarm, but there was notably a well researched and referenced warning formally issued directly to the Liberal Government “Standing Committee on General Government” during Green Energy/Green Economy act hearings delivered by Dr. Michael Trebilcock in april of 2009
The Liberals and their NDP supporters have not listened to the many and varied attempts by the public to avert the ongoing energy disasters, dutifully reported, along with warnings, by Ontario’s faithful Auditors General.
Innumerable letters and phone calls to politicians, petitions to the Legislative Assembly, submissions to the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry, articles about protests at Queens Park, Municipal resolutions against Provincial usurpation of energy development decision-making, Environmental Review Tribunal appeals of renewable energy approvals and subsequent higher court cases; rural Ontario’s resistance to the tyranny of “green” energy is on the public record for all to see.
Opposing voices include expert groups such as the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers described by Kennedy Maise in Ontario Power Generation: ‘A Clash of Politics and Power Planning’ as “one of the most scathing critics of the Province’s electricity policy”, they are still critical even as the Government acknowledges a “mistake” yet ignores the sane solutions.
“Structurally, we’re not even close” to having a regime in place to return policy to some form of rational governance, said Jan Carr, former head of the Ontario Power Authority.
Carr said cancelling new wind projects shows the government is “finally waking up to Ontario’s electricity carnage.”
But it won’t be enough.
“Price increases are baked in for years to come due to the long-term contracts already in place, to say nothing of the implicit promise of returns based on global norms to the public pension funds who bought into Hydro One (the transmission company now being privatized to raise cash for the government).”
Ontario’s Society of Professional Engineers has issued more than half a dozen critical reports on the Liberals’ tendency to let green talk and politics override sound policy. Instead of following the expert advice of engineers and people who understand the intricacies of electricity production and distribution, the Government took to issuing directives right out the Premier’s office.
“Because they know how to turn a light bulb on and off, they’ll issue policy statements on the most complex engineering system on the planet,” said Paul Acchione, a former head of the engineers’ society.
This brings us back to public “insultations” as we know them, for the Government does indeed mock the general public even to the extent of also using our money to set up more third party intervenors for the wind industry, ENGOS and NDP favourite community power. Note the invitation to an LTEP submission party at the bottom of the page on yet another group’s website
As if that is not abuse enough they lumber us with an Environmental Commissioner for Ontario who is a long time climate alarmist and advocate for windpower. For years Diane Saxe blogged doggedly from a pro wind perspective regardless of debunked CO2 claims for wind and serious wildlife mortality.
Such targeted green activism may explain to some extent the bizarre results of a Forum Research poll which claims great support for “alternative energy” at a time when other pollsters – see Nanos graphic above – are seeing preoccupation with the hydro rate “heat or eat” crisis acknowledged by the Premier as a “mistake”.
Incensed by the press release from Forum Research, one of our Southern Ontario allies fired off this rejection of the outlier poll.
Good afternoon Mr. Bozinoff,
Now that you’ve done your poll and got the answer that your customer(s) (wind companies?, Ontario government?) wanted and paid for, let me share the results of my poll, for which I charged no fee and used no weasel words.
Do you think that industrial wind turbines, having been proven to produce unreliable, out of sync, unneeded, expensive power at a huge cost to the environment, scenic landscapes, tourism, human health, property values (MPAC study? Really? ha ha) and creating more emissions by increased burning of fossil fuels (gas) for backup, are a good idea?
Millennials, living in Daddy’s basement, never been outside of an urban area, only friends are condo-dwelling latte-suckers who have never seen a wind “farm” but when polled are “experts” on rural affairs.
“Like, absolutely yes, it’s sooo cool to be an (armchair) environmentalist and outdoor enthusiast, you know, to “save the planet,” though I’m still afraid of getting lost on hikes in the High Park wilderness, and stuff.”
“I took the time to do my research on wind turbines and the Green Energy Act and made an informed decision.”
Rural citizens, generational locals or those who spent their life savings to retire to the peaceful countryside.
“Now I have to live as collateral damage next to an industrial zone full of useless (see question above) wind turbines so that uninformed urban “elites” can feel all “green” and gooey about themselves.”
“I get paid a huge amount of $$$ from the wind companies (subsidized by the taxpayers!) and I’m doin’ it for my children and grandchildren and their children and their children’s children, and screw my neighbours who are just plain jealous of my newfound station in life. Besides, now that I’m well-healed, I can move away from this community of whiners to live in Florida, where they don’t allow wind turbines.”
I have to admit, Mr. Bozinoff, I’m a bit apprehensive about telling people I’m in the polling business, ‘cause as you should know by now, polling companies’ track records of late have been really spotty, to say the least. I’m sure I don’t have to elaborate.
Full disclosure: I live in a condo in Toronto and own a country home in Eastern Ontario. I don’t phone people to get predetermined answers, I ask them face to face for their opinions.
This was the response
Thanks for the comments. Just so you are aware, no one sponsors our polls.
Lorne Bozinoff, Ph.D.| President
After reading the poll we too had serious misgivings and wrote to point out some oddities, hoping for clarification… you can read the whole thread below
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 2:20 PM
Dear Doctor Bozinoff,
Your recent media release http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2638/voters-favour-wind-farms-offshore-and-on-land startled me with several statistics which seem at odds with my personal experience involving canvassing, both rural and urban, several petitions protesting industrial wind developments and attendance at various LTEP consultations. Certainly the negativity toward “green” energy increases greatly as people become aware of the connection between unreliables such as wind and solar and rising hydro costs which affect both personal and business economics as repeatedly warned by 2 Ontario Auditors General.
The realization that the unreliables can’t replace conventional demand generation tends to curb enthusiasm in all but those profiting from the marketing deception promoted by the prejudicial use of the term “alternative energy”. As your findings highlight, the young, who have most recently been victims of school indoctrination in the cult of “sustainability” and the poor, who have statistically less access to classical education which may teach Deductive Reasoning, Science, Math and Logic, appear to be the most gullible of the respondents.
Considering the survey was done post USA election of an economic realist, the responses seem weak in political awareness as well. Whether one has faith in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming or not the economic suicide of “green”energy is completely insane next to the awakening behemoth to the South and Canada’s miniscule CO2 contribution. True the survey is merely a snapshot in time however it seems to lack questions which might identify the historical moment.
As a conservative I must say that the result of your question re support for public investment in “alternative energy” is just astonishing…46% approve! Conservative principles do not condone public money being used to make winners out of losers…Warren Buffett is famously quoted as saying,”The only reason to build wind turbines is the subsidies”. Conservatives in the economic ruin of Ontario are even less likely to stray from principle since we have seen few but Liberal donors benefiting from the outrageously generous 20 year contracts for intermittent, unreliable and highly variable grid-destabilizing generation.
I did note that there are some age groups which seem to recognize a complex issue and acknowledge their limited knowledge on the subject however this is not entirely clear throughout. Perhaps the Premier gadding about consulting Middle School classes and funding community group activism on energy issues gives rise to the idea that anyone can be an expert. Perhaps as a public service you could include qualifying questions re depth of knowledge in your next survey.
Could you do an entire survey, in the public interest, on sources of information which form the basis for public opinion? It would be interesting to know if people even understand the necessity and how to winnow for factual and complete information on topical issues.
As citizens we have a right to vote but that comes with a duty to make an informed vote…you could do more to help people become better participants in a Democracy rather than a Mobocracy.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
On 2016-11-29, at 8:06 PM, Lorne Bozinoff wrote:
I’ve passed your comments on to our polling group.
LORNE BOZINOFF, Ph.D.| PRESIDENT
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 8:11 PM
Thanks, and what should be expected from this?
On 2016-11-29, at 8:11 PM, Lorne Bozinoff wrote:
They will consider your comments when drafting future questions concerning this topic.
LORNE BOZINOFF, Ph.D.| PRESIDENT
On Nov 29, 2016, at 8:28 PM,
What is the composition and training of the polling group to which you refer?
Do you have different groups for different projects/subject areas?
On 2016-11-29, at 8:44 PM, Lorne Bozinoff wrote:
Some team members have been doing this for 30 years.
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 9:02 PM
So should I understand that to mean you have one experienced group/team for all subject areas who were trained on the job?
On 2016-11-30, at 5:51 AM, Lorne Bozinoff wrote:
No, I didn’t say that at all. Anyways, if you disagree with our poll results, I’d like to see your polling results. Thanks.
Sent: November 30, 2016 10:57:07 AM EST
No, you did not but people are inclined to draw their own conclusions when left with unanswered questions or vague and dismissive retorts.
I thank you for your time however I can’t play you show me yours and I’ll show you mine. As I pointed out to you in the first paragraph of my first email, my experience is limited to canvassing with multiple petitions on the subject of wind development and observations at the many energy-related consultations in which I have participated.
Though I did keep a tally (pages 11 to 17) of my success rate with a Federal petition at a scenic lookout, this was not a “poll” as such and people were presented with a map and explanation of the Province’s intentions for wind development of the surrounding wilderness areas. I merely demonstrated what one windpower guru admitted in an industry talk, (I am probably paraphrasing) the more people know about wind energy the less they like it.
Energy consultant and author Robert Bryce quoted the Wind Guru at length:
Justin Rolfe-Reddingcommunications strategist during a March 23 webinar sponsored by the American Council on Renewable Energy called “Speaking Out on Renewable Energy: Communications Strategies for the Renewable Energy Industry.”
During the webinar, Justin Rolfe-Redding, a doctoral student from the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, discussed ways for wind-energy proponents to get their message out to the public. Rolfe-Redding said that polling data showed that “after reading arguments for and against wind, wind lost support.” He went on to say that concerns about wind energy’s cost and its effect on property values “crowded out climate change” among those surveyed.
The most astounding thing to come out of Rolfe-Redding’s mouth — and yes, I heard him say it myself — was this: “The things people are educated about are a real deficit for us.” After the briefings on the pros and cons of wind, said Rolfe-Redding, “enthusiasm decreased for wind. That’s a troubling finding.” The solution to these problems, said Rolfe-Redding, was to “weaken counterarguments” against wind as much as possible. He suggested using “inoculation theory” by telling people that “wind is a clean source, it provides jobs” and adding that “it’s an investment in the future.” He also said that proponents should weaken objections by “saying prices are coming down every day.”
Apparently proponents are still saying that and, based on the Ontario experience, are out and out liars.