Dry Dock or Deep Six?

The Ministry of Energy and the over-paid agencies which have done the bidding of government have been contemptuous of the residents of rural Ontario, the Legislative Assembly, even the Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner, but there seems at least an element of self-loathing on the part of the OPA.

From several of the public meetings for the Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP) there were reported statements revealing of how they apparently view their role.

After hearing of the extreme economic and psychological burdens being born by those citizens enmeshed in years of struggle against the imposition of unwanted wind turbine projects with the potential to ruin iconic landscapes, damage cherished ecosystems and put community health and well-being at risk, one of the OPA experts disclaimed responsibility with an allusion to Watergate,

“We are just the plumbers!”

Elsewhere another individual balked at taking the side of reason saying,

“I’m sitting on a fence just waiting for the government to tell me which way to fall.” All tried to convince attendees that “voters” held more influence than did they, the experts and it was recommended comments be made to “your MPP”.

Under the circumstances perhaps the best type of submission to be made on the subject of the LTEP would be a pointed reference to the recent ouster of the carbon-whacky Australian Government for highly unpopular energy and tax schemes.

The Tony Abbott government is moving quickly to rectify the situation.

Australian Government Takes Axe To Climate Programmes-Sid Maher and Lauren Wilson
The Australian, 11 September 2013

“Public servants are drawing up plans to collapse 33 climate change schemes run by seven departments and eight agencies into just three bodies run by two departments under a substantial rewrite of the administration of carbon abatement schemes under the Coalition.”

“The CEFC (Clean Energy Finance Corporation) confirmed yesterday it had stopped making loans for energy efficiency and clean energy programs. Staff at the $10 billion green bank are seeking a meeting with the incoming Abbott government as a top priority.”

Climate Sceptic May Become Australia’s Next Science Minister -Jonathan Swan
The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September 2013

Coalition MP Dennis Jensen, who is a vocal climate science sceptic, has called on Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott to appoint him as science minister.

“At the moment to be honest I’m feeling under-utilised,” said Dr Jensen, the member for Tangney in Western Australia, who has a master’s degree in physics and a PhD in material science.

“In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all,” Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday.
“Scientific reality doesn’t give a damn who said it and it doesn’t give a damn how many say it.”

It is about time proper Science and the Rule of Law prevailed. In the wake of the rulings against their renewable energy policy by the Aarhus Compliance Committee on Environmental Human Rights, politicians in the UK are finding the strength of character to say they are sorry.

MPs Attack Impact Of Britain’s Climate Change Act On Families & Businesses
House of Parliament, 10 September
Climate Change Act Debate

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): I am delighted to be one of the four remaining MPs who voted against the Climate Change Act in the previous Parliament, all of whom are in the room today. Although my hon. Friend rightly wants to chastise the Government, does he acknowledge that the Act, which has done so much to add to people’s energy bills, was actually steered through Parliament by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who is now Leader of the Opposition? Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Labour party has played a huge part in increasing energy bills, and that it is no good for Labour Members to complain about fuel poverty when they have created so much of it?

David T. C. Davies: Indeed, I do agree. I am sorry that I was not a member of the famous five who voted against the Act in 2008, but I hope I will now do something to put that right. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) here, because he helped to steer the opposition to the Act at the time.

I must confess that I was one of those who accepted the arguments that were made—I supported the Act when it was passed. Of course, part 1 clearly states that the Act is open to amendment if the science changes or if significant developments in science become clear. I contend that, given what we now know about climate science, we have a strong argument for reconsidering the Act with a view to either revoking it completely or drastically amending it.

Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that the Act is without doubt the most foolish piece of statute that any of us here is likely to see in Parliament? Does he further agree that the very principle of unilaterally re-embarking on a crash programme of carbon reduction can only have the effect of exporting our energy-intensive industries to places where they may emit more carbon, and that carbon reduction will have only a nugatory effect on the problem because, as he correctly states, the Chinese are increasing carbon emissions faster than we are succeeding in reducing them?

David T. C. Davies: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He is jumping a little ahead of what I was going to say and has saved me the trouble of saying it, but he is absolutely right. It is ludicrous for us to embark on drastic reductions of carbon dioxide at huge cost to our manufacturing and other industries when nobody else will follow.

A lot has been said about how the science is settled and how anyone who denies the science is some sort of climate change denier, which is nonsense. The very last thing I want to do is to deny that the climate changes. In fact, the climate has been changing probably ever since the Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago. The real deniers are those who deny that change took place before about 300 years ago.

The Auditor General 2011 Report on Renewable Energy exposed the shocking facts:

“Although the Ministry consulted with stakeholders in developing the supply-mix directives, the LTEP, and the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, billions of dollars were committed to renewable energy without fully evaluating the impact, the trade-offs, and the alternatives through a comprehensive business-case analysis. Specifically, the OPA, the OEB, and the IESO acknowledged that:

• no independent, objective, expert investigation had been done to examine the potential effects of renewable-energy policies on prices, job creation, and greenhouse gas emissions; and

• no thorough and professional cost/benefit analysis had been conducted to identify potentially cleaner, more economically productive, and cost-effective alternatives to renewable energy, such as energy imports and increased conservation.

Hopefully the global return to proper Science and accountability may oblige the Ontario government to abandon its draft LTEP and this pretence of public engagement rather than as Lorrie Golstein says, “trying to “fine tune” the disaster they’ve created…”

Rural Ontario has been sending up flares long enough and even urbanites are heading for the lifeboats.

“Green Energy” will power the political Titanic this Government is piloting straight onto economic rocks unless this ship is immediately dry docked for a complete accountability overhaul and cost benefit analysis.

About lsarc

LSarc is grassroots protection of Lake Superior through citizen science and volunteerism.  If you are interested in preserving intact ecosystems and restoring biological integrity of the Lake Superior watershed using the scientific method to test hypotheses and research, then you are LSarc LSarc is proud to be a member of the John Muir Trust and the 60th member organization of Wind Concerns Ontario
This entry was posted in Climate Science, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Global Warming, Junk Science, Ontario Auditor General, Ontario Debt, Ontario Electricity Sector, Ontario Green Energy Act, Ontario Politics, Renewable Energy, Species at Risk, Subsidies, Wind Power, Wind Turbine Health Effects and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Dry Dock or Deep Six?

  1. 1957chev says:

    Reblogged this on Mothers Against Wind Turbines and commented:
    We are telling all of those idiots that we don’t want their useless turbines….and they had better soon LISTEN!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s