Litany of Sins

A recent Sun editorial Liberal wind disaster shafted rural Ontario is an impressive but incomplete a litany of sins:

The Liberal Government overrode local planning rights.

Rural communities were torn apart by greed energy.

They put rural residents health at risk, ignoring MOE advice.

The police used intimidation against peaceful anti-wind protesters.

Name-calling was used to dismiss rural turbine resistance, while urban gas plant protestors cost the public 1.1B for relocations.

Legitimate requests for assistance from MPPs were demeaningly answered with form-letters from both Liberal and NDP representatives.

Green Energy was launched without any meaningful business plan, but with the claim that green energy was needed to eliminate coal-fired electricity – a demonstrably false pretext – while government dispossessed rural residents of fundamental democratic rights…

What the list fails to iterate is the inherent corruption and totalitarian over-reach evident from the outset.

Back when the Green Energy and Economy Act (GEA) was first introduced Tom Adams warned “This will destroy the foundations of effective public utility regulation”

He pointed out:

It also, grants unusually extreme search-and-seizure powers to state inspectors searching for illegal appliances and other breaches of the law.

Supposedly that threat to privacy and property was quashed, yet there were hints of that draconian provision in the intimidating ‘smart’ meter installation programme.

Adams lamented:

Ontario was at one time an internationally recognized leader in the theory and practice of public utility regulation. The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) has been led by, and has also hosted, many of the top experts in the related fields of law, economics, accounting and public administration.

The foundation for Ontario’s historic success in public utility regulation lies in the simple, logical structure of the system. Historically, the mandating legislation of the Ontario Energy Board and the history of supporting precedents and decisions were based on the principle that customers will pay no more than necessary to ensure good quality utility service over the long term. Investors recover their costs, including a reasonable rate of return on their investments, but only prudently incurred costs can be recovered.

Imprudent costs are borne by shareholders. Governments of the day could influence the process by controlling appointments to the OEB, but otherwise the OEB enjoyed substantial independence.

In place of these sound principles, the new legislation allows extensive political interference in utility regulation and requires the regulator to approve excessive rates for consumers if the underlying costs are associated with politically preferred projects.

Turning away from the regulatory model that served Ontario so successfully and replacing it with these conflicted requirements is being done to ensure that the conservation and renewable energy options the Minister seeks to promote can avoid a regulatory test of prudence.

This is the point at which alarms should have echoed in every community and home in the Province. Ontario Minister of Energy George Smitherman was quoted as saying, “the GEA will build on municipal leadership, uploading responsibilities to Queen’s Park.”

Terence Corcoran, Financial Post – March 10, 2009

Translated: That’s green talk for a major power grab….

The objective of the GEA, which turns Ontario’s electricity market from a low-cost system to a whatever-it-costs regime, is allegedly to reduce the province’s carbon footprint. But no carbon-reduction targets have been set or will ever be set, no doubt because it is highly unlikely any significant reductions will occur.

It is a myth that solar and wind power have no carbon emissions, as news reports often say.

The main policy vehicle for renewable power is a massive subsidy regime. The subsidies will take the form of feed-in tariffs, following Europe’s lead. The main impact of such policies in Europe has been soaring prices for electricity and energy, and a carbon footprint that’s as big as ever. It just costs twice as much, with electricity prices that are double and triple North American rates.

Corcoran did a good job following-the-money finding:

The major backers of green power tax-and-grab regimes are hundreds of businesses that stand to collect billions in subsidies and tax benefits from solar, wind and other alternative
energy forms.

There’s the Ontario Green Energy Act Alliance, the major lobbying effort behind the new green police state. It self-describes its origins:

“The Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA), together with other leading trade associations, environmental groups, First Nations, developers, manufacturers, farmers and landowners, is initiating a campaign to create the Ontario Green Energy Act.”

Among the backers of the alliance is the Pembina Institute. The institute’s former climate campaigner, Robert Hornung, is now head of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, which in turn gives money to Pembina. Pembina writes glowing reports on renewables.

Pembina also receives money from the Ontario Power Authority, the Ontario Energy Board and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Another alliance backer is Environmental Defence, the radical Ottawa-based activist group headed by Rick Smith. Last year, Environmental Defence received $500,000 in funding from the government of Ontario. It would appear that one source of that money was the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, which is largely funded by Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government. Rick Smith recently resigned from the Greenbelt Foundation, where he was a director.

Another Green Act Alliance backer is the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. It gets money from local community groups, such as the York Region Environmental Alliance, which is largely funded by the agenda-driven Ontario Trillium Foundation, which spends Ontario lottery cash. The Clean Air Alliance also counts the Energy Action Council of Toronto as a member. Its major backers include the Ontario Energy Ministry and the Ontario lottery operation.

In summary, the Ontario government pays millions of dollars to environmental activists and corporate interests to lobby the Ontario government and agitate for the Green Energy Act, which act serves the interests of the agitators.

And just in case the political connections might be lost, the Ontario Clean Energy Act Alliance’s Web site provides a handy link to the Ontario Liberal Party — not the Ontario government, but the Liberal Party — web site that highlights George Smitherman and Dalton McGuinty. The Web link says:

“Paid for by the Toronto Centre Provincial Liberal Association.”

Astonishingly Ontario Liberals were given an extended mandate for their flagrant kleptocracy by the greedy and the low-information voters.

Tom Adams’ warning from 2009 is yet more relevant today: Even if regulatory integrity and competition are someday restored, it will take at least a generation for consumers to pay down the cost of the imprudent decisions the Province of Ontario makes.

Truly the sins of the Liberals shall be visited on the next generations

Just in: This an important opportunity to help expose the true costs of “green”energy: a wind warrior needs money to fund an FOI to pry truth out of the wind developers.

Getting information through FOI is not a cheap or easy process, as LSARC discovered. It took over one year and an appeal to the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario to pry information out of the Ministry of Natural Resources And Forests (MNRF). The MNRF’s obstructionism was so blatant that the Privacy Commissioner cited our case during a conference in Sault Ste Marie.

Learn more about this attempt to find the truth about bird and bat deaths by going here

Please consider donating to their cause, the response has been wonderful so far, but they still need your help…

Posted in ENGO, Ontario Electricity Sector, Ontario Green Energy Act, Ontario Politics, Renewable Energy, Subsidies, Wind Power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Not to make Blight of it: Tourism Revisited

Donald Trump, who has a genius for stating the obvious, pronounced “Wind turbines are ugly, noisy and dangerous. Bad for tourism” as he warned Scotland not to blight their landscapes

It tends to irk his enemies that he is so often right, so when he claimed ” I am a world class expert in tourism.” he was mocked rather than respected, yet in this too he is correct.  

In the comments section, among ad hominem attacks and churlish remarks, there was this: 

Wow, I hate to agree with him but I think he’s right. 100%.
I grew up in rural Missouri, and although there were tons of reasons to hate it, it WAS beautiful. Now those fucking turbines are everywhere, looking like alien invaders, and emitting a menacing hum.
I truly loathe them, and every time I go home I have fantasies of blowing them up. It’s true enough that rural America struggles for all sorts of reasons, but I think those damn turbines strip away the feeling that you can “get away from it all” anywhere.
I hate them. I hate them. I hate them.

And there are a lot, a lot, a lot, of people just like this individual, with more every day that the blight spreads into places which should have remained inviolate for their restorative qualities. The whole Parks system is tacit acknowledgement of the importance of such landscapes to our well-being.

Even places which had official designation as areas of significant natural heritage or scientific interest have been encroached upon, wilderness allure sullied, tranquility shattered and it has been going on for a long time despite negative response to this “green” energy development in nations which were early victims of the wind scam.

Professor Hans-Joachim Mengel, Germany’s leading protester against windfarms, urged the British:

“Don’t go down the same route as Germany or you could bitterly regret the devastating effects on the English countryside and its communities.”

In September 1998, more than 100 German academics and writers signed the Darmstadt Manifesto against the cultural, environmental and economic folly of wind development. Yet this is the model Ontario chose to follow… after designing a renewable energy approvals process which carefully excluded tourism and economic concerns from the appeals process.

Even though medical studies have recognized the economic determinants of health and there are dire financial consequences for an area which destroys its tourism assets, the Environmental Review Tribunal refused to connect the dots even on appeal in an area such as Algoma where tourism is the second largest employer. In 2011 tourism in Northern Ontario generated $1.414 billion in revenues of which tourism in Algoma accounted for $204 million, or 15% of the total. In 2011 tourism in Algoma directly employed 2,870 residents and contributed $113.5 million in wages and salaries to the region.

While wind itself is unreliable the wind industry is consistent in its attempts and tactics to quash the negative tourism response.  While LSARC plumbed the depths of wind iniquity on this issue and wrote a rebuttal of the wind commissioned tourism report for Algoma in year 2013, here we are in 2016 and they are still making exculpatory claims. 

Like Donald Trump who has fought plans for an offshore wind farm close to his golf resort in Aberdeenshire, our conservation allies in the UK, the John Muir Trust (JMT), are still battling the invasion of giant turbines across Scotland’s iconic landscapes.  Edinburgh-based Biggar Economics concludes no adverse effect while JMT had understandable doubts. 

“We have seen Biggar Economics’s reports and its evidence at inquiries on the issue of whether tourism might be affected by wind farms,” said Helen McDade, from the JMT. “We had significant doubts about the way in which this report and its conclusions were done so we commissioned independent analysis.”

We are with them, and the Donald, on this having had our own experiences with tourists’ reactions to the industrial wind turbine blight in scenic and wilderness areas, witness guest post by Gord Benner

The more familiar normal people are with the greed energy folly, the more they hate wind turbines anywhere. But hell hath no fury like the environmentalist viewing the hypocrisy of it all.  The outrage is evident in this post Blight for Naught: Wind Turbines and the Rationalized Desecration of Scenery

Posted in Ontario Electricity Sector, Ontario Politics, Renewable Energy, Wind Power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Powerful Arguments


Two recent articles highlight the fact that if you want to depopulate rural areas, de-industrialize urban ones and generally crash the economy per UN Agenda 21 also known by the risible misnomer “Sustainable Development“… you have a proven tool in “green” energy.
UN MULTI GOV CONTEXT Ck04fY8WYAACfnDThe first sad piece is by our ally and numbers hero Dr. Ross McKitrick to whom we are enormously grateful for his help and encouragement (see review of the Greenwich Wind Farm economic analysis.
Here, he points out economic follies, as he has done since the inception of Ontario’s insane greed energy scheme:

“Despite the hype, all this tinkering produced no special environmental benefits. The province said it needed to close its coal-fired power plants to reduce air pollution. But prior to 2005, these plants were responsible for less than two per cent of annual fine particulate emissions in Ontario, about the same as meat packing plants, and far less than construction or agriculture. Moreover, engineering studies showed that improvements in air quality equivalent to shutting the plants down could be obtained by simply completing the pollution control retrofit then underway, and at a fraction of the cost. Greenhouse gas emissions could have been netted to zero by purchasing carbon credits on the open market, again at a fraction of the cost. The environmental benefits exist only in provincial propaganda.”

As someone with a background in Environmental Economics Dr McKitrick is particularly sensitive to the values or “externalities” so loved by activists so he continues:

And on the subject of environmental protection, mention must be made of the ruin of so many scenic vistas in the province, especially long stretches of the Great Lakes shores, the once-pristine recreational areas of the central highlands, and the formerly pastoral landscapes of the southwestern farmlands; and we have not even mentioned yet the well-documented ordeal for people living with the noise and disturbance of wind turbines in their backyards. We will look in vain for benefits in Ontario even remotely commensurate to the damage that has been done.

This is a tragedy all the worse for its deliberateness and in spite of the fact that future generations are unlikely to know what treasures were lost.

The province likes to defend its disastrous electricity policy by saying it did it for the children. These are the same children who are now watching their parents struggle with unaffordable utility bills. And who in a few years will enter the workforce and discover how hard it has become to get full time jobs amid a shrinking industrial job market.

The second item elaborates on the punishing rural rates which can only increase given the Ontario government’s ideological bent.

As those of us fighting the imposition of unreliable generation remote from demand know, the Ontario Energy Board has seriously conflicting objectives (below) which render it yet another bureaucratic waste of time and money.

The Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, sets out guiding objectives for the Board:

• To protect the interests of consumers with respect to prices and the adequacy, reliability and quality of electricity service.
• To promote economic efficiency and cost effectiveness in the generation, transmission, distribution, sale and demand management of electricity and to facilitate the maintenance of a financially viable electricity industry.
• To promote electricity conservation and demand management in a manner consistent with the policies of the Government of Ontario, including having regard to the consumer’s economic circumstances.
• To facilitate the implementation of a smart grid in Ontario.
• To promote the use and generation of electricity from renewable energy sources in a manner consistent with the policies of the Government of Ontario, including the timely expansion or reinforcement of transmission systems and distribution systems to accommodate the connection of renewable energy generation facilities.

Posted in Globalist Agenda, Ontario Electricity Sector, Ontario Politics, Renewable Energy, Sustainability, Wind Power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments


DSC02420 2
The Bow Lake IWT as seen from Hwy 17 just south of Orphan Lake

The peripatetic duo, Gord Benner and Joyce Chyrski, once again made a holiday summer stop on the Algoma coast of Lake Superior.  As testified at the Bow Lake ERT they have a long-standing devotion to the restorative landscape of our scenic shore.  

The convoluted topography of this area reveals multiple views of the three existing industrial wind developments between Sault Ste Marie and Wawa.  Clarity depends on weather conditions and time of day so even locals can be shocked when a different angle or light exposes afresh the greed energy blight on our otherwise majestic vistas.

DSC02287 2016
Gord, JC and other survivors at the annual Bow Lake ERT wake

Herewith is a guest post by Gord Benner cottage life connoisseur and defender of the Algoma wilderness ethos:


Attached, please find photos from this year’s Algoma trip.

IMG 3132
Photo #1
View from Agawa Bay Lookout, Hwy. 17, Lake Superior Provincial Park -credit G. Benner

“Explore Ontario” we did … and didn’t like what we saw.

IMG 3151
Photo #2
Lake Superior Prov. Pk., Agawa Rock Pictographs Site -credit G. Benner

The Lake Superior Park website says:

“The Agawa Rock Pictographs are enduring messages from the past. This is a sacred site where generations of Ojibwe have come to record dreams, visions and events.”
“Agawa Rock is a sacred site. Please respect and preserve the pictographs. Do not touch the paintings.”

Please respect the site, but ignore those monuments to “greed” energy in the background.

Apparently some medicine man was consulted about the visual impact of the wind turbines on the opposite shore, lit a fire, did something with the ashes, then declared that the “sacred site” was still sacred.  Well, I guess that settles that.

IMG 3186
Photo #3 Bow Lake / Algoma “Wilderness” -credit G. Benner


IMG 3202
Photo #4
Bow Lake / Algoma “Wilderness” -credit G. Benner

Go ahead, clear cut the forests, dynamite the tops off the hills, build hundreds of kilometers of roads through endangered species habitat, don’t bother controlling the runoff of silt and other pollutants into the streams and lakes (so-called installed mitigation failed), don’t properly stabilize the slopes (mitigation failed), don’t provide proper ditching (failed), put up “sensitive amphibian habitat” signs only to be ignored by speeding pickups driven by wind, construction and maintenance personnel, and so on …


Revisited the camp on Algoma’s Negick Lake on July 17, 2016.
Photos taken last year are attached.

The wind turbines, which were under construction last year at this time, are now running and I can assure you that anyone who says they are whisper quiet is an outright liar.

When the wind is blowing, the continuous noise varies between the sound of a stationary plane , a train that never passes or a chugging washing machine that won’t quit:

“The Bow Lake / Nodin Kitigan  industrial wind development pretty much sandwiches Jim Fata’s retreat in the wilds of Algoma, the closest of 36 1.6MW turbines being across the water at a mere 850 metres.  Guests are shocked at the power of the sounds they emit which, was only supposed to be a whisper, yet can often be heard over even the small gas generator in Jim’s shed, or the radio played at moderate volume.”  –LSARC


(Also, over the pitter patter of light rain on the metal porch roof)

This is an intrusion on nature as well as the local camp owners’ enjoyment of their properties, not to mention visiting fishermen, hunters, hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts. This is particularly galling given the fact that most educated people now know industrial wind turbines are only good for two things: lining the pockets of wind developers and host landowners,  and stoking the egos of their enablers (mostly conned politicians and their lackeys).     

Wind Turbines loom over Fata camp, Negick Lake -credit G. Benner
IWT over Negick Lake -credit G. Benner
Posted in Renewable Energy, Wind Power | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Do Not Go Willingly Into The Dark

Do not go willingly into the dark

Be warned! the green are re-grifting the EBR… they want you to have a right to a stable climate!  This may require you live as a slave but as long as the environment is saved…  the right to clean air and water; safe food sounds fine but dogs in a kennel get that.

I believe these rights must also be included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -David Suzuki

Suz has the usual appeal to the great CAGW brainwashed, aka useful idiots

It’s now or never: Strengthen Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights

The Ontario government recently announced plans to open its Environmental Bill of Rights for review. The government also wants to know what you think about environmental rights and responsibilities more broadly, and whether the right to a healthy environment should be included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is our opportunity to see Ontario lead by joining more than 110 nations that recognize the human right to a healthy environment, including clean air and water, safe food and a stable climate.

We now have 120 days to convince the government to strengthen our EBR to include the substantive right to a healthy environment, a right that isn’t currently covered.

When Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights was introduced in 1993, it was at the forefront of environmental law and policy. But more than two decades later, it’s showing its age. While we have the right to know about pollutants released into our local ecosystems, we don’t have the right to be proactively protected from them.

Let’s stand together as ordinary people taking extraordinary action to protect the people and places we love. Please tell the Government of Ontario that you want a strengthened Environmental Bill of Rights that recognizes your right to a healthy environment.

“The Honourable Glen Murray (Minister of the Environment and Climate Change)”

I want substantive environmental rights in Ontario!

As an Ontarian, I feel deeply connected to our province’s natural environment and want to make sure it’s protected for years to come.

I stand with people across the country who are asking all levels of government to establish the legal right to a healthy environment. All Canadians should have the right to clean air and water, safe food and a stable climate. I believe these rights must also be included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to shape our relationship with the land, air and waters on which we all depend.

By joining more than 110 nations that legally recognize environmental rights and responsibilities, Ontario has an important leadership opportunity in our country.

I therefore support the following improvements to Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights:

1. Substantive environmental rights — The guarantee of substantive environmental rights lies at the very heart of a strong Environmental Bill of Rights. It includes the right to breathe clean air, drink safe water, enjoy a nontoxic environment and expect healthy ecosystems for our children and grandchildren. 

2. Environmental principles — Since the Environmental Bill of Rights was enacted almost 25 years ago, a number of important environmental principles have emerged nationally and internationally that are still missing from the EBR. These include such well-known concepts as zero discharge, polluter pays, the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity.

3. Environmental justice — Increasing evidence shows low-income Ontario communities and historically disadvantaged groups, including Indigenous peoples, are unfairly exposed to and affected by pollution. Environmental justice can help address the inequitable distribution of environmental hazards — like air, water and soil pollution – in the province.
Taking a look at Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights

We go over some changes the government could make to its Environmental Bill of Rights to improve the protection of Ontarians’ environment and health.

One of the keys to Ontario’s success as a great place to live, work, and enjoy outdoor recreation has been the balance between industrial growth and protecting the natural things we cherish about this great province. That balance between purely economic-driven development and protecting Ontario’s clean air, water, forests, and agricultural lands has been (mostly) successfully struck over the last few decades, in part, by a law unique to Ontario called the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR).

When it was enacted almost a quarter century ago, Ontario’s EBR was an important, groundbreaking statute promoting transparency and public engagement in environmental decision-making in the province. Over the years, the EBR has made a significant contribution to sustainable development across the province and to protecting the health of Ontarians. However, because the EBR has remained largely unchanged over its 23 year life, while pressure on Ontario’s environment continues to increase, it is now seriously outdated in a number of respects.

It’s for that reason that the Government of Ontario is about to conduct a province-wide public consultation on how to improve the EBR. All of us will have an opportunity over a four month period to make submissions by email or by mail to the government to tell them what we think should be done to improve the protection of our environment and our health.
Here are four changes the government could make to bring Ontario’s EBR up to speed:

Recognize substantive environmental rights

The first and foremost needed reform of the EBR is the recognition of the substantive right to a healthy environment for all Ontarians. The guarantee of substantive environmental rights lies at the very heart of a strong EBR. It includes the right to breath clean air, drink safe water, enjoy a nontoxic environment, and expect healthy ecosystems for our children.

Right now the people of Ontario are guaranteed none of these rights, even though citizens in dozens of other countries around the world have the benefit of legislated recognition of the right to a healthy environment in their communities. Human health, well-being, and dignity depend on access to clean air and water, safe food, and a stable climate. This should be explicitly spelled out in Ontario’s EBR.

Update the purposes of the Environmental Bill of Rights

The purpose and principles of any legislation, including the Ontario EBR, are important because they guide the interpretation of the statue. Purpose sections also have legal importance because they cannot be contradicted by the courts when they are considering the lawfulness of actions under the statute. When originally enacted, fundamental environmental principles such as ‘pollution prevention’ and ‘biodiversity conservation’ were included in the EBR to direct and guide the government in its environmental decision-making. However, since the EBR was enacted almost 25 years ago, a number of equally important environmental principles have emerged at the national and international level and have been adopted in other jurisdictions across Canada. These new environmental principles, which are still missing from the Ontario EBR, include such well-known concepts as ‘zero discharge’, ‘polluter pays’, the ‘precautionary principle’ and the key concept of ‘intergenerational equity’. It’s time for these important principles to be included in Ontario’s EBR.

Apply environmental justice principles

There is increasing evidence that low-income Ontario communities and communities belonging to historically disadvantaged groups, including Indigenous peoples, are disproportionately exposed to and impacted by environmental hazards. Environmental justice is a framework for addressing the inequitable distribution of environmental hazards in the province.

Consideration of the relationship between socioeconomic status, race, and environmental health is relatively new in Ontario. In other jurisdictions, including the United States, issues of environmental justice have been subject to discussion, study, and legal recognition for decades.  Ontario’s laws do not explicitly identify and address issues of environmental justice or inequity. It’s time for this to change and the EBR review presents an important opportunity to begin to address the inequitable distribution of environmental harms in Ontario.

Allow reasonable opportunity for judicial review

When government falls short in meeting its obligations under the EBR in relation to environmental protection regulations or policies, Ontarians should have the ability to take the government to court to seek judicial review of an ill-advised environmentally harmful decision. But right now, under the current wording of the EBR, there are very broad restrictions on the public’s right to seek judicial review of a government decision. These restrictions, contained in what’s referred to as a ‘privative clause’, are broader than those in most other provincial legislation and certainly far broader than need be.

The privative clause in the Ontario EBR must be amended to grant Ontarians the genuine ability to challenge the government when it makes an ill-advised environmentally harmful decision.


Review of Environmental Bill of Rights – A Provincial Dialogue

 EBR Registry Number:   012-8002

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Date Information Notice loaded to the Registry:
July 11, 2016

Keyword(s):   Legislation

This notice is for your information. The Environmental Bill of Rights does not require this notice to be placed on the Environmental Registry, however, section 6 of the Act does allow the Environmental Registry to be used to share information about the environment with the public.

Rationale for Exemption to Public Comment:

The purpose of this notice is to inform the public of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s review of components of the Environmental Bill of Rights and to seek public feedback.


Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR) protects the environment by ensuring that the public is informed, engaged and consulted on matters of environmental significance. Ontario is a leading Canadian jurisdiction in the promotion of environmental rights due in part to the vision and requirements outlined in the EBR. The act is administered by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. 

Under the EBR, Ontarians have the right to request a minister review an existing act, regulation, policy or instrument to protect the environment. The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change received an application for a review of the EBR itself and has agreed to examine certain components of the act. 

As part of this review, the ministry is seeking public feedback on select parts of the EBR through a discussion guide. The discussion guide provides an overview of the relevant sections of the EBR as well as a series of questions to help you consider the issues. Links to the discussion guide, the full text of the EBR and the EBR regulations are provided. 

The ministry is also seeking your input on the right to a healthy environment. There is a movement in Canada to enshrine a right to a healthy environment in a legislative framework, principally in the Canadian Constitution. MOECC is seeking the views of Ontarians so that it may be better positioned to contribute to the national dialogue. 

The discussion guide includes questions to help you consider particular aspects of the EBR and environmental rights. The guide will be posted for a 120-day comment period, from July 11 to November 8, 2016. The ministry will then analyze the feedback, post a summary of the comments received and identify next steps in the EBR review. Links to the guide, the full text of the EBR and the EBR regulations are provided. Comments may be submitted to the


Anda Kalvins
Project Manager
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Climate Change and Environmental Policy Division
Strategic Policy Branch
77 Wellesley Street West 
Floor 11
Ferguson Block
Toronto Ontario
M7A 2T5 
Phone: (416) 314-7562

Additional Information:

The documents linked below are provided for the purposes of enhancing public consultation.

All links will open in a new window

1. Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, S.O.
1993, c. 28


3. O. Reg. 73/94: GENERAL

4. Discussion Guide to Review of Ontario’s
Environmental Bill of Rights and Regulations and Consideration of Ontarians’ Environmental Rights

Posted in ENGO, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Ontario Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

It Is Enough To Make You Sick

It is enough to make you sick


“Unnecessary noise, then, is the most cruel absence of care which can be inflicted either on sick or well.”
Excerpted from “Chapter IV Noise” of Florence Nightingale’s famous 1898 work: “Notes on Nursing What It Is, and What It Is Not” 

The World Health Organization (WHO) is in the process of updating regulatory guidelines to deal with the problem of noise pollution from industrial wind turbines (IWT) which has become more and more toxic with the proliferation industrial wind developments in quiet bucolic communities. Shockingly they are found even in remote wilderness areas where people generally have an even higher expectation of restorative tranquility. Citizens groups urge protective precaution.

The WHO has already established it is enough to make you sick:

“Residents living within 6,500 feet of a turbine feel an overall diminished quality of life.  Those exposed to turbine noise at 5,000 feet also experienced significantly lower sleep quality and rated their environment as less restful. They concluded that data strongly suggests that wind turbine noise can negatively impact quality of life.”

and doctors are aware Wind Turbines aren’t good for us credit:  cumberland times-news | june 29, 2016 |

It has also been going on for far too long, thanks to wind industry lobbying and ideologically pre-disposed governments.  Green groups, third party intervenors for the wind scam and a complicit media, have managed to help misinform the urban dwellers about the particularly odious impulsive quality of noise generated by IWT, which includes a large low frequency (LF) and infrasound (IF) component.

The Bow Lake/Nodin Kitigan  industrial wind development pretty much sandwiches Jim Fata’s retreat in the wilds of Algoma, the closest of 36 1.6MW turbines being across the water at a mere 850 metres.  Guests are shocked at the power of the sounds they emit which, was only supposed to be a whisper, yet can often be heard over even the small gas generator in Jim’s shed, or the radio played at moderate volume.

DSC06629’s compliance monitoring tower greets those arriving by road as it stands in Jim’s little clearing with a line of sight to the turbine towers looming on the opposite shore of the small lake.  The government now mandates third party monitoring of audible sound; however the devil is in the details.  There is still no monitoring of Low-Frequency or Infrasound mandated and there is smoothing & minimization implicit in the “averaging” over time of the sound input; the otherwise amiable installers, who must by now be aware of all the short-comings of the rigged annoyance mitigation system, dodged any responsibility with the statement, “blame it on the government”.

We do!

Wind turbine noise testing needs a total overhaul, Wind Concerns Ontario says

Ontario needs new wind turbine noise regulations: WCO to MOECC

Wind turbine noise testing needs total overhaul, Wind Concerns Ontario says


June 27, 2016, OTTAWA – Ontario needs to do a complete revision of procedures for wind turbine noise testing, Wind Concerns Ontario has informed the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) in a review of proposed regulatory changes.

According to WCO, the growing scientific research on wind turbine noise emissions and the escalating number of unresolved complaints confirm that proposed changes to the government’s old protocol are insufficient to address the problems faced by people living among wind turbine projects.

“The changes the Ministry has proposed to its existing procedures are nothing more than minor tweaks,” says president Jane Wilson. “The government is ignoring the need for real change to keep up with science, and to protect health from noise emissions.”

By 2015, the MOECC had received more than 2,700 complaints about problems with wind turbine noise, WCO learned. Though more recent data are not available, monitoring by WCO suggests that this number has continued to grow with the number of larger new turbines that have become operational since then.

Proposed new testing procedures are inadequate as they limit testing to audible noise outside of the home, while many citizen complaints relate to turbine noise emissions that people cannot hear, but rather, are vibrations or sensations that they feel, says WCO. And, while many complaints are about the noise and sensation experienced inside buildings, the MOECC only tests outside noise.

“The MOECC persists in the standard of using one form of noise measurement, the dBA, while the acoustics industry and even the Government of Canada has said this is providing only part of the picture on noise emissions,” Wilson says.

The process of confirming turbine compliance with regulations is convoluted and complex — people have lost trust in the Ontario government, WCO says. For example, the Enbridge project near Kincardine began operation in late 2008 but there is still no report that confirms the turbines are compliant.

The MOECC also relies on information from the power developers, and predicted modelling — not actual noise testing. This has resulted in a loss of faith in the Wynne government as a protector of public health.
Rather than dismissing resident complaints, WCO told the Ministry in a comment document in response to proposed regulatory changes, the government should view these contacts as an opportunity to learn and show leadership in responsible renewable energy implementation.
Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of community groups and citizens concerned about the impact of industrial-scale wind power projects on the economy, the environment, and health.

Contact Jane Wilson at

Additional quotes:
“If government and the wind power development industry is using only A-weighted noise measurement or dBA, they are only getting part of the picture.”

“Wind turbines have been found out of compliance via third-party measurements, yet the MOECC does not act on these findings. The MOECC also does not report publicly on complaints or actions taken as it does for other complaints made to the ministry ‘Spills Line’. ”

“Using only computer-generated predictive noise models does not reflect the reality of wind turbine noise emission experiences in Ontario. The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change needs to do actual, on-site testing in conditions similar to or the same as those that spurred a citizen complaint to assure Ontarians it is fulfilling its mandate to protect people.”

See the WCO comment document filed with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change here: ResponsetoNoiseProtocol-June16FINAL

Posted in ENGO, Ontario Green Energy Act, Ontario Politics, Renewable Energy, Wind Power, Wind Turbine Health Effects | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Green washing and other forms of psychological abuse…

Green washing and other forms of psychological abuse…
We tweeted about the ogre Suzuki in an Ontario Government Climate Change/CAGW ad when it was first released and now there is another one… parents and educators take note, protect developing minds.

Ontario’s Wynne government is emotionally abusing and brainwashing your children

Ontario’s Liberal Wynne government is abusing children with a television ad deliberately aimed at kids, crafted to instil fear and anxiety about (non-existent) manmade climate change. In it, the ogre-like manmade global warming huckster, David Suzuki, is on stage in front of an audience of obviously frightened grade school boys and girls. A slide show of climate doom-and-gloom plays on the big screen behind him. He hectors them with this:

We’re in trouble, and not enough adults are listening.
Who will have to live with the consequences?
So you’re going to have to solve it.

Is Wynne’s government propaganda a form of emotional child abuse? It would appear to be the case. The Red Cross defines child abuse as follows (emphasis added):

Child abuse is any form of physical, emotional and/or sexual mistreatment or lack of care that causes injury or emotional damage to a child or youth. The misuse of power and/or a breach of trust are part of all types of child abuse.

Is Wynne’s government propaganda-targeting of little kids in this manner even permissible under Canada’s standards for broadcasting to children?  Consider the following contained in Advertising to Children in Canada/A Reference Guide (emphasis added):

Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children
The special characteristics of the children’s audience have long been recognized by Canadian broadcasters and advertisers.
In 1971, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children (Children’s Code) was created. As enunciated in the Background to the Children’s Code, its purpose is to “serve as a guide to advertisers and agencies in preparing commercial messages which adequately recognize the special characteristics of the children’s audience. Children, especially the very young, live in a world that is part imaginary, part real and sometimes do not distinguish clearly between the two. Children’s advertising should respect and not abuse the power of the child’s imagination.”

Does Wynne’s government propaganda violate the following articles in the Guide (emphasis added)?

8. Professional or Scientific Claims

Advertisements must not distort the true meaning of statements made by professionals or scientific authorities. Advertising claims must not imply that they have a scientific basis that they do not truly possess.

11. Superstition and Fears

Advertisements must not exploit superstitions or play upon fears to mislead the consumer.

Does Wynne’s ad disparage the parents of children and thus violate the following article of the Guide (emphasis added)?

14. Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals

(c) demean, denigrate or disparage any identifiable person, group of persons, firm, organization, industrial or commercial activity, profession, product or service or attempt to bring it or them into public contempt or ridicule;

The ad tells children that the adults are not listening and places the onus on them “to solve it.” Would that be a violation of the following article (emphasis added)?

5. Avoiding Undue Pressure

(a) Children’s advertising must not directly urge children to purchase or urge them to ask their parents to make inquiries or purchases.
Concerned parents can complain to Advertising Standards Canada (ASC): “ASC carefully considers and responds to all written complaints from members of the public about advertising.”

The Wynne government has a second television ad wherein little children heartbreakingly do their best to carry out Suzuki’s marching orders from the first ad and try to convince adults that manmade climate change is real:

Dear adults, you’re not listening to children. […] Climate change is serious. It’s not like it’s fake or anything. It’s not like it’s an April Fool’s joke. It’s real.

But it IS fake. We know the Wynne Liberal government in Ontario is working in lockstep with the UN diktats of Agenda 21 and the 2030 Agenda. The UN’s globalist plans are rationalized by a fictitious planetary climate emergency. They are designed to deindustrialize, depopulate, redistribute wealth, halt prosperity and development, control everyone and everything, and impose an unelected, unaccountable global governance.
…Continue Reading on Wolf Hill Blog

Posted in Climate Science, Global Warming, Globalist Agenda, Junk Science, Ontario Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments