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

New World Disorder

William Pitt the Younger after the defeat of Napoleon,

“England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”


The Old World has been committing suicide, but our fellow subjects of the British Monarchy decided to stop; they opted for the Brexit.  Britain’s nick-of-time vote to depart from the European Union was, of course, resisted by globalists and their “useful idiots” who profit from that technocratic trap.  Project fear was launched to convince everyone that Brits are incapable of prospering independent from a bloated, blundering bureaucracy which has aspirations beyond its competence, to establish a new world order.

The eurocrats forgot that their job of dumbing down the public is not quite complete.  There are still some who remember that the British Commonwealth has an impressive mercantile history and there are many who honour the veterans and the slain of the war in Europe who fought to preserve freedom and human rights for all.

Many in Canada, particularly wind warriors who recognize UKIP’s Nigel Farage as an ally against the “green”grift, celebrated the peaceful Brexit for which he worked so long and hard.  Economic and political subjugation for Europe/the West is in fact an objective of the EU globalists who are still busy trying to foil democracy and intended all the time to double down on their tyrannical enforcement of collectivism and global governance. 

The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.
Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels

The fact that the financial world is looking a lot more hostile to “green” energy scammers is a good thing!   The rural anti-greed-energy vote was strongly for Brexit and hopefully the critical voice of Farage, hero of the Brexiteers, will continue to be heard clearly and wisely heeded; this battle is not yet over. 

Still it is an encouraging start and Lord Monckton, in thanking America for inspiration and example of their hard-won constitution also pointed out the weakness which allows the erosion of democracy inherent in treaties involving supranational powers.  We would do well to note Monckton’s suggested remedies:

First, every new treaty, and as many pre-existing treaties as possible, should be made subject to repeal by a national referendum – and not just by a referendum called by the governing party because it thinks it can win it, but by the people via the initiative procedure. Britain would have left the EU long before now if we, the people, and not those who govern us, had had the right to put referendum questions on the ballot.

Secondly, the governing bodies of all new supranational, or global bodies exercising real sovereign power or spending taxpayers’ money from the states’ parties to the treaty that establishes them should be elected at frequent intervals by the peoples of those states’ parties.

Otherwise every international treaty, being a transfer of power from elected to unelected hands, diminishes democracy.

The populist Presidential candidate Donald Trump has those same totalitarian schemers apoplectic because he frequently mentions the unmentionable and has already fired salvos across the bow of the wind industry and their “sustainable development”/Agenda21 enablers at the UN, likewise the climate industry; he has had the courage to target the “false song of globalism” directly.

Meanwhile in Canada… we have a PM who won’t even permit a referendum on electoral reform and runs in different circles.  Trudeau is busy with the US and Mexico locking us into the North American equivalent of the EU, ostensibly “… looking to find common solutions to our shared challenge of climate change.”  Of particular concern is the potential for more disastrous energy policies and carbon tax extortion; NB “North America currently generates 37 per cent of its energy from clean power, although Canada produces 81 per cent domestically, the United States generates 32 per cent and Mexico comes in at 18 per cent.”

The almost concealed numbers tell who is  already “clean” and who is not Mexico is no model citizen of the world.

To those familiar with Agenda21 rhetoric it all sounds typically vague, innocuous, and verbose to the point of eyes-glazing-over, which works to advantage of a grift and “high level” (costly) interpreters… 

Our renewed strategic partnership will focus on four themes: strengthening the ties between Canadians and Mexicans, and facilitating our people’s mobility; promoting shared and inclusive prosperity; fostering the safety and security of our people; and demonstrating regional and global leadership.

To further elevate and deepen bilateral engagement, we are pleased to announce the launch of the Canada-Mexico High Level Strategic Dialogue (HLSD), to be led by our respective foreign ministers with the advice and support of other Cabinet members, as appropriate. The HLSD will be structured around the four themes indicated above. The first meeting will take place in Mexico in October 2016 and will follow up on the initiatives launched during the visit.

Hoping that a domino-effect exiting the EU or a US President who may fight globalism will be sufficient to bring the world to common sense is leaving too much to chance.  Brexit should be a call to action not complacency. These are dangerous times and lest we are willing to have a “New World Order” in the New World, we should read the fine print(below) and demand an opt-out clause on everything.

New World Disorder

Leaders’ Statement on a North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership

June 29, 2016
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, President Barack Obama, and President Enrique Peña Nieto share a common commitment to a competitive, low-carbon and sustainable North American economy and society. The Paris Agreement was a turning point for our planet, representing unprecedented accord on the urgent need to take action to combat climate change through innovation and deployment of low-carbon solutions. North America has the capacity, resources and the moral imperative to show strong leadership building on the Paris Agreement and promoting its early entry into force. We recognize that our highly integrated economies and energy systems afford a tremendous opportunity to harness growth in our continuing transition to a clean energy economy. Our actions to align climate and energy policies will protect human health and help level the playing field for our businesses, households, and workers. In recognition of our close ties and shared vision, we commit today to an ambitious and enduring North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership that sets us firmly on the path to a more sustainable future.

Advancing Clean and Secure Power

We announce a historic goal for North America to strive to achieve 50 percent clean power generation by 2025. We will accomplish this goal through clean energy development and deployment, clean energy innovation and energy efficiency. Building from ongoing efforts by our respective energy ministers through the North American Energy Ministerial Memorandum Concerning Climate Change and Energy Collaboration, a range of initiatives will support this goal, including: 

• Scaling up clean energy through aggressive domestic initiatives and policies, including Mexico’s Energy Transition Law and new Clean Energy Certificates, the U.S. Clean Power Plan and five-year extension of production and investment tax credits, and Canada’s actions to further scale up renewables, including hydro. 

• Collaborating on cross-border transmission projects, including for renewable energy. At least six transmission lines currently proposed or in permitting review, such as the Great North Transmission Line, the New England Clean Power Link, and the Nogales Interconnection, would add approximately 5,000 megawatts (MW) of new cross-border transmission capacity.  

• Conducting a joint study on the opportunities and impacts of adding more renewables to the power grid on a North American basis.

• Enhancing trilateral collaboration on greening of government initiatives including the purchase of more efficient products, cleaner power, and clean vehicles.  Strengthening and aligning efficiency standards across all three countries, facilitating the seamless movement of products, reducing pollution, and cutting costs for consumers. We commit to promote industrial and commercial efficiency through the voluntary ISO 50001 energy performance standard and to align a total of ten energy efficiency standards or test procedures for equipment by end of 2019.

• Building on North American leadership in international fora such as Mission Innovation to accelerate clean energy innovation, our energy researchers are identifying joint research and demonstration initiatives to advance clean technologies in priority areas such as smart grids and energy storage; reducing methane emissions; carbon capture, use and storage; nuclear energy; and advanced heating and cooling, including energy efficiency in building.

Together, we estimate that the development of current and future projects and policies to achieve this goal will create thousands of clean jobs and support of our vision for a clean growth economy.
The three countries will continue to strengthen the North American Cooperation on Energy Information platform, by including additional geospatial information relating to cross-border infrastructure and renewable energy resources. We also commit to deepened electric reliability cooperation to strengthen the security and resilience of an increasingly integrated North American electricity grid.

Driving Down Short-Lived Climate Pollutants

Short-lived climate pollutants such as methane, black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbons are up to thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide. Common sense actions to reduce these pollutants will deliver significant climate and health benefits in the near term and into the future, supporting our goal to limit global warming this century.
Today, Mexico will join Canada and the United States in committing to reduce their methane emissions from the oil and gas sector – the world’s largest methane source – 40% to 45% by 2025 towards achieving the greenhouse gas targets in our nationally determined contributions. To achieve this goal, the three countries commit to develop and implement federal regulations to reduce emissions from existing and new sources in the oil and gas sector as soon as possible.  

We also commit to develop and implement national methane reduction strategies for key sectors such as oil and gas, agriculture, and waste management, including food waste. 

Finally, we pledge to continue collaborating with one another and with international partners as we commit to significant national actions to reduce black carbon emissions in North America, and promote alternatives to highly polluting hydrofluorocarbons.

Promoting Clean and Efficient Transportation

We recognize that fully realizing the promise of an integrated North American transportation network will require joint action that will create clean jobs while reducing energy consumption, greenhouse gases, and air pollution. 

Today, we commit to: 

• accelerating deployment of clean vehicles in government fleets;

• working collaboratively with industry to encourage the adoption of clean vehicles by identifying initiatives to support consumer choice;

• encouraging public and private infrastructure investments to establish North American refuelling corridors for clean vehicles;

• working to align applicable regulations, codes and standards where appropriate;

• fostering research, development, and demonstration activities for new clean technologies;

• convening industry leaders and other stakeholders by spring 2017 as part of a shared vision for a competitive and clean North American automotive sector.

Canada, the U.S., and Mexico commit to reduce GHG emissions from light- and heavy-duty vehicles by aligning fuel efficiency and/or GHG emission standards by 2025 and 2027, respectively. We also commit to reduce air pollutant emissions by aligning air pollutant emission standards for light- and heavy-duty vehicles and corresponding low-sulphur fuel standards beginning in 2018. In addition, we will encourage greener freight transportation throughout North America by expanding the SmartWay program to Mexico.

We recognize the significant contributions of our respective automotive industries and urge them to continue playing a leadership role in the development and deployment of clean and connected vehicles, innovating toward a shared vision of a green transportation future.
We support the adoption by all countries in 2016 of the market-based measure proposed through the International Civil Aviation Organization to allow for carbon-neutral growth from international civil aviation from 2020 onwards and will join the first phase of the measure adopted.

We are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from maritime shipping and will continue to work together and through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to support implementation of a North American Emission Control Area that includes Mexico.

Protecting Nature and Advancing Science

The mainstreaming of conservation and sustainable biodiversity is a key component of sustainable development. Canada and the U.S. congratulate Mexico on its commitment to host the 13th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity under this theme. We will also work together to better integrate ocean observation systems, enhance early warning systems for natural disasters, and cooperate on marine protected areas.

We reaffirm our commitment to work collaboratively to achieve our long term goal of conserving North America’s Monarch migratory phenomena and to ensure that sufficient habitat is available to support the 2020 target for the eastern Monarch population.  

Trilateral efforts to date have achieved significant successes across the range, including the restoration and enhancement of hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat.  We look forward to continued progress and action in the future, building on the population increase for eastern Monarchs observed in 2015.

We commit to collaborating with Indigenous communities and leaders to incorporate traditional knowledge in decision-making, including in natural resource management, where appropriate, and in advancing our understanding of climate change and climate resilience. We also recognize the importance of gender-responsive approach to  climate action and sustainable development.

Showing Global Leadership in Addressing Climate Change

Canada, the U.S., and Mexico will work together to implement the historic Paris Agreement, supporting our goal to limit temperature rise this century to well below 2ºC, and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5ºC.

We reaffirm our commitment to join the Agreement this year, and call on all nations to support its entry into force in 2016. As we implement our respective Nationally-Determined Contributions, we will cooperate on climate mitigation and adaptation, focussing in particular on highly integrated sectors, shared ecosystems, human health and disaster risk-reduction efforts. We will work together and with international partners to support developing country partners in their mitigation and adaptation efforts. We will also support robust implementation of the Paris Agreement’s transparency and carbon markets-related provisions, and will develop mid-century, long-term low-greenhouse gas emissions development strategies this year. 

Canada, the U.S., and Mexico affirm our commitments to adopt an ambitious and comprehensive Montreal Protocol hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) phase-down amendment in 2016, and to reduce use of HFCs, including through domestic actions. We call on all nations to support this goal.

We commit to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 and call on the other members of the G-20 to do the same. We also urge the G-20 to make commitments to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector and to improve the environmental performance of heavy-duty vehicles.

Canada, the U.S., and Mexico will promote universal energy access and work together to address the challenges of energy security and integration, clean energy investment, and regional energy cooperation in the Caribbean and Central America.

Canada, the U.S. and Mexico will align approaches to account for the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions when assessing the benefits of emissions-reducing policy measures.

The Action Plan that supports this Joint Statement further elaborates the various activities that the three countries are undertaking to meet its commitments.

North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership Action Plan

The North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership was announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, President Barack Obama, and President Enrique Peña Nieto on June 29, 2016, at the North American Leaders Summit in Ottawa, Canada. This Action Plan identifies the deliverables to be achieved and activities to be pursued by the three countries as part of this enduring Partnership.

Advancing Clean and Secure Energy

Advance clean energy and integration of energy resources, including renewables:

• Strive to achieve a goal for North America of 50% clean power generation by 2025, including renewable, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage technologies, as well as demand reduction through energy efficiency, with actions undertaken by each country individually to achieve this regional goal being in accordance with their own conditions, specific legal frameworks and clean energy national goals.

• Advance clean energy development and deployment (including renewable, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage technologies). 

• Support the development of cross-border transmission projects, including for renewable electricity. The three countries recognize the important role that cross-border transmission lines can play in cleaning and increasing the reliability and flexibility of North America’s electricity grid. At least six transmission lines currently proposed or in permitting review, such as the Great Northern Transmission Line, the New England Clean Power Link, and the Nogales Interconnection, would add approximately 5,000 megawatts (MW) of new cross-border transmission capacity.

• Jointly study, identify, and implement options for broad energy system integration, including completion of the second installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review focused on a comprehensive review of the electricity system. In addition, develop the North American Renewable Integration Study (NARIS) to analyze coordinated planning and operations impacts under a high renewable energy scenario across North America.

• Greater trilateral collaboration on encouraging the greening of government initiatives and on the purchase of more efficient products, cleaner power, and clean vehicles as appropriate. The U.S. General Services Administration and Public Services and Procurement Canada announce their intention to increase the percentage of electricity they purchases from clean energy sources to 100 percent by 2025.

• Greater trilateral collaboration on encouraging the greening of government initiatives through establishing ongoing exchange and cooperation between countries to share and leverage existing methodologies, tools, analysis and lessons learned to further enhance the sustainability of our Federal operations.

Improve energy efficiency:

• Better align and further improve appliance and equipment efficiency standards. We commit to align six energy efficiency standards or test procedures for equipment by the end of 2017, and a total of ten standards or test procedures by the end of 2019.

• Drive industrial and commercial efficiency to reduce energy use and increase competitiveness through the voluntary ISO 50001 energy performance standard, and commit to set a common target date for ISO 50001 uptake by 2017.

• Work collaboratively to identify at least one major industry partner to pilot ISO 50001 adoption throughout its supply chain, emphasizing technical resources to support the success of this strategy for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the region.

Accelerate clean energy innovation and advance cooperation on energy information:

• Leverage participation in Mission Innovation by identifying joint research and demonstration initiatives to advance clean technologies in priority areas such as: reducing methane emissions; carbon capture, utilization, and storage; electricity grids and energy storage; as well as conditioning of spaces and energy efficiency in buildings.

• Through the North American Competitiveness Workplan, advance a North American Clean Energy Partnership Initiative (NACEPI) to support the development of linkages among clean energy technology companies, with a focus on SMEs, and to promote the use and export of North American clean energy and environmental technology.

• Further advance collaboration on the North American Cooperation on Energy Information platform, by including additional geospatial information relating to cross-border infrastructure, static maps of solar resource, a renewable energy resource catalogue, as well as relevant updates to the terminology glossary.

Strengthen the reliability, resilience and security of the North American Electricity Grid:

• Building on the U.S. – Canadian experience, Mexico and the United States have initiated discussions to explore a similar conceptual model for deepened bilateral electric reliability cooperation. This cooperation is a critical step towards establishing a shared trilateral vision for electricity reliability in North America.
• Our three countries are committed to deepened electric reliability cooperation to strengthen the security and resilience of an increasingly integrated North American electricity grid against the growing threats presented by cyber-attacks and severe weather events.

Driving Down Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
Reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector:

• Reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the world’s largest industrial methane source, 40-45 percent by 2025 towards achieving the greenhouse gas targets in our nationally determined contributions, and explore additional opportunities for methane reductions. The three countries commit to develop and implement federal regulations for both existing and new sources as soon as possible to achieve the target. We intend to invite other countries to join this ambitious target or develop their own methane reduction goal.

• Collaborate on the development of federal programs and policies, and exchange information, practices and experiences regarding reducing emissions in the oil and gas sector to improve outcomes.

• Encourage oil and gas firms to join international efforts such as the Climate and Clean Air Coalition’s Oil and Gas Methane Partnership and the Global Methane Initiative, and domestic ones.

• Share information and tools to support better methane data collection, improved source measurements, and transparency of emissions reporting across North America to enhance the effectiveness of emission inventories, and promote the adoption of cost-effective technologies and practices for field measurement, monitoring, and emissions mitigation. 

Develop national methane strategies with a focus on key sectors:

• Develop and implement national methane reduction strategies that could target key sectors such as oil and gas, agriculture, and waste management. 

Decrease methane emissions from landfills and the agriculture sector:

• Support the regional commitment and collaboration initiative under the Commission for Environmental Cooperation using voluntary measures to reduce and recover food waste in North America, in line with Target 12.3 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which envisions a 50% reduction in global food waste by 2030.

• Take actions to reduce emissions from landfills – the third largest source of methane globally.

Reduce black carbon (soot):

• Commit to pursuing domestic actions to reduce black carbon, recognizing that black carbon is a climate pollutant with strong warming impacts that affects air quality and human health, and that action to reduce black carbon emissions is an important component of efforts to address climate change, as a complement to reducing greenhouse gases.

• Strengthen initiatives to reduce black carbon in sectors such as industry and agriculture, including through technical support and information-sharing on best practices, strategies, and methodologies.

• Drive down black carbon emissions from new heavy-duty diesel vehicles to near-zero levels continent-wide by implementing aligned, world-class, ultra low-sulphur diesel fuel and HDV exhaust air pollutant emission standards by 2018.

• Deploy renewable energy and efficiency alternatives to diesel, coal or firewood in remote communities, in collaboration with international partners and organizations.

• Collaborate on implementation of the World Bank’s Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 Initiative.

• Affirm existing efforts to quantify and reduce emission of black carbon in other venues. These include:

◦ Establishing the North America black carbon inventory under the CEC, through which each country submits a national inventory;

◦ Supporting or carrying out, as appropriate, national action planning through the Climate & Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), plus sector-specific initiatives such as those targeting municipal solid waste, diesel fuel, and industrial emissions through the CCAC;

◦ Developing black carbon inventories consistent with the Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution.

Reduce hydrofluorocarbons:

• In 2016, the United States expects to finalize a rule to expand the list of low global warming potential alternatives and prohibit the use of certain high-global warming hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. Canada plans to establish a domestic regulatory permitting and reporting regime for HFCs and develop new HFC regulatory measures, including a phase-down of HFCs and product-specific prohibitions. Mexico plans to initiate new actions to authorize the use of low global warming potential SNAP-approved HFC alternatives as well as promote their use as alternatives to high global warming potential HFCs and remove barriers to deployment.
Promoting Clean and Efficient Transportation

Reduce energy consumption, and greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions from motor vehicles: 

• Work together to promote a common continental approach and reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gases, and achieve other important air-quality co-benefits of motor vehicles, including by:

◦ Accelerating deployment of clean and efficient vehicles in government fleets; including through U.S. commitments to expand charging infrastructure at federal facilities, and leveraging innovative financing and economies of scale for U.S. agencies seeking to scale up clean and efficient vehicle fleets and infrastructure;

◦ Working collaboratively with industry to identify initiatives to support consumer choice and encourage the adoption of clean and efficient vehicles;

◦ Supporting development of and encouraging public and private investments in clean refueling infrastructure to establish North American clean refueling corridors;

◦ Aligning applicable regulations, codes and standards where appropriate;

◦ Fostering research, development, and demonstration activities including for advanced vehicles;

◦ Convening a meeting to engage industry leaders and other stakeholders by spring 2017 as part of a shared vision for a competitive and clean North American automotive sector; and

◦ Promoting access to Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) refueling infrastructure in homes, the workplace and communities.

• Implement aligned, world-class, ultra low-sulphur diesel fuel and HDV exhaust air pollutant emission standards by 2018.

• Implement aligned light-duty vehicle (LDV) and heavy-duty vehicle (HDV) fuel efficiency and/or greenhouse gas standards out to 2025 and 2027, respectively.  

• Align LDV exhaust and evaporative air pollutant emission standards with full U.S. Tier 2 standards by 2018 and fully phase in Tier 3 standards by 2025, while also implementing ultra low-sulphur gasoline standards. 

Support the implementation of green freight best practices:

• Align and harmonize green freight efforts for North America, by expanding the SmartWay Program to also include Mexico. The three countries intend to collaborate to drive down fuel use through best practices in fleet operations and management, improving energy efficiency while reducing emissions.

Reduce maritime shipping emissions:

• Continue to work together through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to address greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, including emissions from existing ships.

• Welcome the recent approval of a mandatory global data collection system within the IMO to collect data on ship-specific CO2 emissions and energy efficiency.

• Continue ongoing collaboration through the Commission for Environmental Cooperation in support of the finalization and submission to the IMO of a Mexican Emission Control Area (ECA) designation proposal. 

Reduce international aviation emissions through the ICAO:

• Work together and through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to reduce emissions through a basket of measures, including the adoption at the 2016 ICAO Assembly of a robust market-based measure to help to enable carbon neutral growth from 2020 onward. This measure should strike an appropriate balance between the principle of non-discrimination and differentiation among countries with different national circumstances, and endorse the phasing-in of implementation and a dynamic approach to the distribution of offsetting requirements as the means to do so. The three countries plan to join the first phase of the measure adopted and work together toward reaching a successful outcome at the ICAO Assembly.

Protecting Nature and Advancing Science
Foster incorporation of traditional knowledge and gender responsiveness:

• Collaborate with Indigenous and local communities and leaders to more broadly and respectfully include traditional knowledge in decision making, including in natural resource management, where appropriate, and in advancing our understanding of climate change and climate resilience. We also recognize the importance of a gender-responsive approach to climate action and sustainable development.

Mainstream conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity:

• Take national actions to mainstream conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into and across diverse sectors, in support of the Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) to which each country is party.

Conserve the Monarch butterfly and its habitat:

• Building on the significant progress made by the three countries since 2014 to address threats to the Monarch butterfly, continue to address habitat loss and degradation through the Trilateral Working Group for the conservation not only of the Monarch Butterfly, but also of other pollinators.

• Promote sufficient breeding, staging, migration, and overwintering habitat is made available domestically to support the 2020 Eastern Monarch population target represented by its occupation of six hectares of overwintering habitat in Mexico.

• Continue collaborating through the Tri-national Monarch Science Partnership to coordinate priority research, monitoring, information sharing, and tools development.

Protect migratory birds and their habitat:

• Renew and recommit to regional, bilateral, and trilateral activities in support of migratory bird and habitat conservation.

• Develop a vision for the next 100 years of bird conservation.

• Exchange information on best practices, promote cooperative and coordinated monitoring and research programs, bring together stakeholders to develop strategies for conservation investment, and expand environmental education and outreach.

Protect land and sea migratory species and their habitat:

• Implement programs to conserve and improve biological corridors for whales and other species and their habitats, including their food chains and ecosystem quality.

Strengthen cooperation on invasive alien species:

• Further collaborate on addressing invasive alien species on a continental scale. Establish a trilateral working group to explore the development of a high level joint Strategy and Action Plan identifying key areas for collaboration, including under the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, and to initiate a survey of existing transboundary invasive alien species projects and initiatives.
Strengthen conservation of key species and combat wildlife trafficking:

• Continue close collaboration in the implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), including efforts to stop the illegal trade in wildlife. Develop specific action plans to deliver creative solutions to protect CITES-listed species, with the goals of ensuring a long-term balance between conservation and sustainable international trade involving all relevant stakeholders.

Enhance cooperation on ocean management:

• Recognizing the importance of climate services, robust observations and modelling networks for mitigation and adaptation efforts, better integrate ocean observation systems and foster complementary research on oceans and climate change, including the impacts of climate change on oceans and marine ecosystems.

• Support collaborative efforts on early warning systems for natural disasters; in particular, improving ocean observing capabilities and sharing and standardizing data from ocean buoys that would support these systems.

• Enhance cooperation among respective Marine Protected Areas, with the goal of increasing economic and socio-ecological resilience in a context of climate change.

• Enhance the conservation and restoration of wetlands, which increase mitigation actions (blue carbon), preserve coastal ecosystems services, and reduce the potential impacts of more frequent or intense severe weather events under climate change projections. 

Showing Global Leadership in Addressing Climate Change
Support implementation of the Paris Agreement:

• Reaffirm our commitment to join the Agreement this year, and call on all nations to support its early entry into force.

• Implement respective Nationally Determined Contributions, and share progress on these efforts, work to increase their ambition over time and cooperate where appropriate.

• Support international partners in their mitigation and adaptation efforts, including as articulated in their Nationally Determined Contributions, National Adaptation Plans, and other strategic frameworks, through such avenues as international fora, triangular cooperation in the Americas, and by providing development assistance and climate financing.

• Develop mid-century, long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies pursuant to the Paris Agreement this year. Engage in trilateral dialogue concerning the development of these strategies.

• Promote full implementation of the transparency framework established under the Paris Agreement, with common modalities, procedures, and guidelines for reporting and review. Help developing countries build institutional and technical capacity to meet these requirements.

• Share best practices and technical solutions to improve accounting effectiveness, including for the land sector and carbon market-related approaches.

• Recognizing the role that carbon markets can play in helping achieve climate targets while driving innovation, support robust domestic implementation of the Paris Agreement’s carbon markets-related provisions, as applicable.

◦ Together and in close cooperation with states, provinces, and territories, explore options to ensure environmental integrity and transparency and apply robust accounting, in order to avoid the “double-counting” of emission reductions towards achieving NDCs.

◦ Encourage sub-national governments to share lessons learned about the design of effective carbon pricing systems and supportive policies and measures. 

Enhance domestic adaptation efforts and resilience to climate change:

• Engage in and cooperate on domestic climate adaptation planning and action, building on ongoing targeted efforts at national and subnational levels, and focusing in particular on highly integrated sectors and shared ecosystems, and where possible, on actions with mitigation co-benefits, involving the most vulnerable communities, and employing an approach that is gender-responsive and respectful of human rights. 

• Strengthen disaster risk reduction efforts, coordinated disaster preparation and response, and early warning systems. 

• Continue to collaborate through the North American Climate Change and Human Health Working Group to foster cross-border relationships and increase climate change adaptive capacity in the area of human health.

• Continue to collaborate through the Commission for Environmental Cooperation to develop an operational, real-time syndromic surveillance system for extreme heat events in three at-risk communities in our three countries, and to highlight best practices and lessons learned on developing such a system.

Encourage robust action by the G-20:

• Phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 in keeping with the G-20’s 2009 commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in the medium term as Canada, the United States, and Mexico affirm their commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 and provide targeted support for the poorest communities.

• Develop low greenhouse gas emission development strategies pursuant to the Paris Agreement by 2020.

• Commit to improve the environmental performance of heavy-duty vehicles, including through the implementation of stringent domestic regulations on fuel efficiency and/or greenhouse gas emissions, air pollutant emissions, and low-sulfur fuels, and through green freight programs; and.

• Address methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by developing and implementing national and sub-national methane reduction policies and regulations, and participating in mechanisms such as the Climate and Clean Air Coalition Oil and Gas Methane Partnership. These actions could support future steps towards adopting national emission reductions targets, where appropriate.

Adopt a Montreal Protocol hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) phase-down amendment:

• Adopt an ambitious and comprehensive Montreal Protocol HFC phase-down amendment in 2016, and work with other countries so that they are in a position to support adopting an amendment this year.

Align analytical methods:

• Given the integrated nature of many aspects of the three economies, align analytical methods for assessing and communicating the impact of direct and indirect greenhouse gas emission of major projects. Building on existing efforts, align approaches, reflecting the best available science for accounting for the broad costs to society of greenhouse gas emissions, including using similar methodologies to estimate the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases for assessing the benefits of policy measures that reduce those emissions.

Promote a more secure, affordable, accessible, and clean energy future regionally and globally:

• Support the recommendations made in the May 2016 report from the United States-Caribbean-Central American Task Force on Energy Security, and help lead the world in important multilateral efforts such as the UNFCCC negotiations, the Clean Energy Ministerial, Mission Innovation, the Caribbean Energy Security Initiatives, the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas, Connecting the Americas 2022, and the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum.

• Engage partner countries and multilateral development banks to promote universal energy access and integration in the Americas, and to mobilize finance for the development of sustainable energy projects, with a particular focus on indigenous communities, marginalized groups, and more vulnerable regions such as the Caribbean and Central America.

• Foster sustainable energy development and economic growth through transparent and competitive energy markets, and by reducing barriers to trade and investment in clean technologies and services.
Promote a just transition to a clean energy economy:

• Invest strategically in communities to help them diversify economies, create and sustain quality jobs, and share in the benefits of a clean energy economy. This includes promoting decent work, sharing best practices, and collaborating with social partners such as workers’ and employers’ organizations and NGOs on just transition strategies that will benefit workers and their communities.

• Protect the fundamental principles and rights at work of workers who extract and refine fossil fuels, and who manufacture, install, and operate energy technologies.

Posted in Carbon Trading, Climate Science, Global Warming, Globalist Agenda, Junk Science, Renewable Energy, Subsidies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Global Governance model and Statist outcomes

There is an unfortunate drive in some, whether well-intentioned or otherwise, to strive to control the lives of others. There are obvious benefits that accrue to those in control.

Whether out of narcissism, insecurity or the hubris that somehow one person or a small group can properly manage all aspects of a society for the betterment of everyone, throughout history we see this struggle between liberty and statism.

Inevitably when given any measure of control the Statist always demand more and more as they seek to increasingly micro-manage humans in an attempt to implement their unattainable utopian visions.

Over the past 40 years we have seen the re-emergent dominance of the Statists as technocratic bureaucrats and large financial interests seek to grow their power and control over democratic societies.

Inevitably the inherent fallibility of humans, not to mention greed and self-interest, result in a slowly unfolding disaster.

Lord Monckton gives a brief outline of how the modern Statists seize control, based on the EU model, in this video clip.

This excellent article outlines the emerging consequences of this Statist control which drives us ever closer to global conflict:

BREXIT: what the BBC didn’t say
Posted on June 5, 2016

A referendum will be held on June 23rd in the UK to decide on “BREXIT” (Britain Exit), i.e. whether to leave or remain in the European Union. The BBC has outlined the pros and cons, but the list would not be complete without a few reflexions on the dismal failures of EU policies.
Foreign policy
The actions of some NATO countries have brought lasting, dangerous chaos to Irak, Afghanistan and Libya. So, why on earth did the EU help destabilize yet another muslim country by encouraging a rebellion in Syria? The result is a catastrophe of major proportions, which has backfired against Europeans through massive, often hostile immigration –  Video: The forced collective Suicide of European Nations – and primarily against the refugees themselves, some of which have drowned at sea, including many children.

Another misguided policy of the European Commission has been to systematically humiliate Moscow. First, they attracted former USSR satellite countries into the EU and NATO, regardless of the cost – political, social and financial. Then they helped dismember Yugoslavia, another country with special ties to Russia. This, by the way, fanned independence movements within EU countries, destroying their social fabric. It’s nowhere more evident than in Spain, which is slowly disintegrating into pieces.

Russia took the punches, and kept its cool. But then Brussels got greedy, and pushed its luck one bridge too far: it courted Ukraine. This led to a protracted coup d’état in Kiev, forcing the democratically elected pro-Russian president to resign.

It took naïve EU politicians to think that Russia would let a NATO power take control of Sebastopol, which harbors its main fleet since immemorial times. Ignorant ones too, because it doesn’t take a historian to know that Khrushchev had taken Crimea and the Donetz away from Russia, by ukase, to give them to Ukraine. Being a Ukrainian himself, he had no qualms about putting under Kiev’s orders the essentially Russian population of these two provinces. This wasn’t too serious an offense as long as Ukraine was part of the USSR; but when that country became independent, the sore thumb became a casus belli.

Whatever the real motive behind this folly, the EU bull had entered the china shop. The rest is still fresh in our memories: Ukraine’s Russian populations asked Moscow for help in view of the hostile coup in Kiev. Russia obliged, sending troops into Crimea and securing its fleet in Sebastopol. The Crimeans greeted their fellow-countrymen with joy, organized a referendum and voted overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian homeland. This happened so fast it became a fait-accompli.

Seeing this, the population of the Donetz organized their own referendum to reunite with mother Russia. But the EU scorned that democratic vote, oblivious to the Yugoslavia precedent. Instead, it helped quash the rebellion by sending weapons and money. In turn, Russia assisted the Donetz resistance, accusing the EU of double standards. Thousands died, and NATO came close to an open war with Russia, which might have led to the use of nuclear weapons.

The mess created in Ukraine by Brussels’ incompetent government is still unresolved, and the war-devastated population of the Donetz will be waiting years for an impossible solution to this stand-off between nuclear powers. One way or another, EU taxpayers will have to shore up Ukraine, a corrupt and bankrupt country, and subsidize EU farmers who can no longer export their products to Russia, an important market that has been lost in the process. As for business in general with Russia, it’s another huge loss for the EU economy. An independent Britain could benefit from that if it seized the opportunity.

Turkey is another blunder of epic proportions. For years the, er, let’s call them EU nullocrats, have been negotiating with Ankara the hypothetical admission of their country of 80 million muslims into the EU (one wonders on whose mandate, since the sovereign people of the EU were never consulted on this vital issue). This gave hope to the Turks, of course. But then European public opinion, upon finding out, reacted against this nonsense, and the negotiations were put on the back burner, humiliating the Turks in the process.

This year, following the disastrous exodus of millions of Syrians, Afghans, Irakis and Africans through Turkey and into the EU, the nullocrats offered a stupid deal to Turkey in exchange for a reduction in the flux of refugees: 6 billion euros, and the right for Turkish citizens to fly, drive or walk into the EU… without a visa! Ankara first agreed, then demanded more favourable terms still, e.g. €6 billion, yes, but every year!

We owe this mind-boggling piece of diplomacy to Angela Merkel, who brokered the deal. A final decision will be made this month on the new Turkish demands. By the way, there are really 140 million Turks, if one includes those living in central Asia.

The EU, it must be said, has no democratic authority to carry out these idiotic policies, which put Europe at considerable risk. Only two countries, Spain and Luxembourg, ratified by referendum the 2004-modified European Constitution. The French and Dutch people rejected it in 2005. The other member countries ratified it without calling a referendum. So, what happened next? – the nullocrats went around the negative referendum results by proposing a treaty to all member countries, which they signed the following year. This “Treaty of Lisbon” essentially put in force the Constitution that was rejected by the people.
In view of this, who can say that the EU is a democracy? Nullocracy, yes! Corruptocracy, certainly! (lobbyists are swarming in Brussels) But democracy? – absolutely not! Its constitution was imposed by a trick, and its government of Commissioners is not elected. All Europeans can do is watch in dismay, and brace themselves for a rough landing.
The environment
After spending millions to create a network of natural reserves throughout Europe (Natura 2000 areas), and enacting laws (“directives”) to protect biodiversity, the Commission proceeded to destroy both. Thousands of wind turbines sprouted throughout Europe, following Brussels’ diktat imposing the “energy transition”. It didn’t matter to these arrogant politicians and bureaucrats that the turbines would be killing millions of birds and bats, many of them endangered species that are controlling the proliferation of pests. They went as far as producing a Guidance document to make sure Natura 2000 areas could also have their bird choppers. Migration routes, even those of rare birds, were not spared either. Many species are on the decline as a result.

These huge machines desecrated landscapes from Finland to Portugal, destroying natural habitats, bringing rare species closer to extinction, and emitting dangerous infrasound affecting farm animals, wildlife, and people. Electricity prices have skyrocketed, but CO2 emissions keep rising: politicians had not figured out that wind is intermittent. So, we must have fossil fuels plants to back up the wind farms, and both must be subsidized. You couldn’t make this up!

…Continue reading

Posted in Globalist Agenda, Subsidies, Sustainability | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Today it is written in the book of fate…

The entire country of Canada emits less CO2 than global air travel, which emits 2% of global CO2 emissions. Ontario’s carbon dioxide emissions are so small that they don’t exceed the range of error in the IPCC’s projections. They amount to a rounding error.

Minister Glenn Murray is like the mouse that sets out to kick the elephant’s butt in a fight… amusingly cartoonish but no more credible.

But of course this is not about reducing CO2 emissions or changing the climate – this is about seizing ever greater control of every aspect of our lives.

It will not end here. Obviously this is an incremental process. Like boiling a frog – it is essential the temperature be increased slowly and progressively otherwise the frog jumps out of the pot.

The modern globalist technocratic Fabians – inheritors of the Socialists’ long march through our institutions – see themselves as rulers by right of the population, free to conduct their social experiments in search of their socialist utopia and the perfectibility of man.  

And if a few eggs, or an economy, get broken along the way?  

Well that’s the cost of progress isn’t it?  They and theirs will remain insulated from these adverse consequences, as despots always have, for they and their cause are too important to be inconvenienced by adversity.  
So we see the Eurocrats give themselves life-long immunity from prosecution and the US Senators exempt themselves from the onerous ObamaCare they passed without reading.  

Here in Ontario they are more subtle – or less confident – and so we have interminable OPP investigations lasting years unable to find evidence, ending quietly after the public’s attention span has been exceeded.

At least the Federal Liberals are more direct and – true to PM Trudeau’s love of the Chinese Communist system – his assault & battery on 2 MPs in the House of Commons will shortly be excused by a Liberal controlled Committee, the Supreme Soviet rubber stamping the Politburo’s every action.

We are not Europeans, but the globalists who espouse the UN’s vision of a world government run by unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats pursue their agenda on every continent.  In the March 2016 words of Victor Orban, PM of Hungary:

“Today it is written in the book of fate, that hidden, faceless world powers will eliminate everything that is unique, autonomous, age-old, and national. They will blend cultures, religions, and populations, until our many-faceted and proud Europe will finally become bloodless and docile. If we resign ourselves to this outcome, our fate will be sealed and we will be swallowed up in the enormous belly of the United States of Europe. 

We must therefore drag the ancient virtue of courage out from under the silt of oblivion.

First of all, we must put steel in our spines, and we must answer clearly, with a voice loud enough to be heard far and wide, the single most important question determining out fate. The question upon which Europe stands or falls is this:

Shall we be slaves – or men set free?” – 

So far the voters that elected this Ontario government, fully knowing their policies and corruption, seem quite comfortable as they croak in their Liberal pot.

Ross McKitrick: Climate crazy Ontari-ari-ario’s no place to grow, but to get the hell out of

The latest news out of Queen’s Park is that Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals plan to deindustrialize Ontario. Of course they don’t call it that; they prefer the term “decarbonize.” But for an industrial economy, the government’s new climate action plan, leaked to reporters this week, amounts to the same thing.

The proposed scheme beggars belief. Having phased out coal-fired power, the province now plans to phase out natural gas, the only reliable alternative for non-baseload generation. Despite electric cars being extremely costly and unpopular, more than one in 10 new car sales will need to be electric, and every two-car household will have to own at least one electric car. All homes listed for sale will require a costly energy audit. Home renovations will have to be geared around energy efficiency as the government defines it, not what the homeowner wants.

Around the time that today’s high-school students are readying to buy their first home, it will be illegal for builders to install heating systems that use fossil fuels, in particular natural gas. Having already tripled the price of power, Queen’s Park will make it all but mandatory to rely on electricity for heating.

There will be new mandates and subsidies for biofuels, electric buses for schools, extensive new bike lanes to accommodate all those bicycles Ontario commuters will be riding all winter, mandatory electric recharging stations on all new buildings, and many other Soviet-style command-and-control directives.

The scheme is called the Climate Change Action Plan, or CCAP, but it would be more appropriately called the Climate Change Coercion Plan: the CCCP.

Reportedly there has been some pushback against this lunacy from within cabinet. While Environment Minister Glen Murray is driving it forward with enthusiasm, his colleagues with economic portfolios are expressing some reluctance. One imagines they have an intuitive sense the CCCP is misguided, but they struggle to say why.

Perhaps I can help. Even if one accepts mainstream climate science as interpreted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it does not imply that carbon dioxide emissions impose infinitely high costs and should be driven to zero. It only tells us that such emissions may impose modest external costs on other people that emitters should pay for. Nor does it tell us that those emission-related costs are greater than the costs of trying to stop climate change. In fact, the IPCC reports strongly suggest otherwise. Chapter 10 of the IPCC Working Group II report concludes that at low levels of warming (up to two degrees Celsius) the costs will be small relative to the impacts of other economic changes in peoples’ lives, and may well be negative (i.e., a possible net benefit from mild warming).

Translated into practical economics, we could assume that emitting a tonne of carbon dioxide causes a small amount of harm to other people: roughly between zero and 20-dollars’ worth. So emission-reduction policies that cost less than $20 per tonne to implement could be justified based on mainstream science and sound economics. Policies costing more cannot.

The Murray plan however is laden with policies that will cost hundreds or thousands of dollars per tonne to implement — far more than the value of any environmental benefits they generate. They will drive away investment and employment, raise the cost of living and eliminate economic opportunities. No longer will Ontari-ari-ario be “A Place to Grow”; it will be a place to get the hell out of if you want a job and a decent standard of living.

…Continue Reading on the Financial Post

Posted in Cap & Trade, Globalist Agenda, Ontario Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tightening control over your life

We wrote about Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 and sustainability being used to facilitate inter-generational plunder for the benefit of bureaucrats, corporatists and politicians.

We wrote about Ontario’s proposed Carbon Tax/Cap & Trade, its predictable impacts on the people of Ontario and the financial incentives for a Government and politicians to implement it.

Existing “Carbon” Cap & Trade is promoted by those who stand to profit from the scheme and existing “carbon” trading markets rife with fraud, theft and politician’s conflicts of interest.

Today the Ontario Government posted its Final Cap & Trade Regulation, which among others promises to create jobs. The Green Energy and Green Economy Act also promised jobs.

Given how well that worked out for the Province these new Regulations should be a treat…

We were going to comment on today’s Final Cap & Trade Regulations, however this post says it all:

The UN controls how Canadians are permitted to live their lives

Canadians are increasingly subject to the UN’s globalist “programme of action.” Very few know anything about it. None voted for or consented to it.

Michael Snyder explained the objective:

…the globalists want to use “sustainable development” as an excuse to micromanage the lives of every man, woman and child on the entire globe.

In other words, unelected, unaccountable, dictatorial global governance. It’s being implemented in plain sight, but with stealth, cunning, and collusion, orchestrated by “a bewildering array of institutions that have been well hidden behind the scrim of modern life,” according to investigative journalist Elizabeth Nickson, author of Eco-Fascists: How Radical Conservationists Are Destroying Our Natural Heritage.

Agenda 21, the 1992 “United Nations Programme of Action From Rio,” focuses on the environment and “sustainable development.” Based on 27 “Principles” from the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, it is a “non-binding agreement” signed by 178 countries, including Canada.

In 2015, Agenda 21 was revised and re-named “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The tagline is “Transforming Our World”—and they really mean it.  The document spells out “17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”, and was “adopted by world leaders in September 2015.”

Agenda 21 and the 2030 Agenda are globalist public policy blueprints—diktats from the UN, an anti-democracy world body that seeks to erase national sovereignty, personal freedoms, property rights, and aims to transfer wealth by fiat, de-industrialize thriving economies, and de-populate the world. Incremental steps to achieving those ultimate goals are being implemented by local, provincial and federal governments in Canada, under the guise of “saving the planet” from a non-existent manmade global warming climate emergency.

So, what are examples of UN Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 policies forced on Canadians? For starters, you need politicians co-opted and willing to believe in the great planetary manmade climate emergency fiction. They are influenced, bedazzled, or dependent enough on the $1.5 trillion “climate change” industry to do the hallowed UN’s bidding. Unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of such politicians at all levels of government. Many may not even understand what they are doing or how they are being manipulated by the UN’s eco-foot soldiers, the zealous eco-fanatical ENGOs, often foreign-funded, who openly work against the interests and welfare of Canadians.

In Ontario, Premier Kathleen Wynne parrots the key word from the UN’s 2030 Agenda tagline to explain a draconian, untenable, wrecking-ball of a “climate change” plan in fulfillment of the UN’s diktats (emphasis added):

We are on the cusp of a once-in-a-lifetime transformation. It’s a transformation of how we look at our planet and the impact we have on it…It’s a transformation that will forever change how we live, work, play and move.  

Wynne’s Liberal government has sworn fealty to a dictatorial non-Canadian, unelected, unaccountable globalist boss, rather than working in the best interests of Ontarians, as is her mandate.

The Ontario Liberals love to use the same language found in the UN’s Agenda 21/2030 Agenda bibles. For example, opponents of fake-green, economically-useless, environmentally-destructive wind turbine factories must prove, as detailed in Section 142.1 (3) of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act  that a given project will cause “serious and irreversible harm” to plant/animal life or the natural environment, or “serious harm” to human health—insurmountable burdens of proof, as we shall see. And where did the wording “serious” and “irreversible” harm come from? You can find it in Principle 15 of the the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development:

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

The UN’s Principle 15 means that though there may be “threats of serious or irreversible damage,” if you cannot demonstrate “full scientific certainty” of these threats, then the “measures to prevent environmental degradation” may proceed. The possibility of “threats of serious or irreversible damage,” even the degradation of the very environment that the UN and its willing agents are supposedly saving from “environmental degradation,” does not prevent government approval of “green” projects. The “precautionary approach” is transparently lopsided and clearly disadvantages opponents of “green” policies.

Such is the anti-democratic influence of the UN’s Agenda 21, enshrined in Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act and in the terms of reference for the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal, a quasi judicial court mandated to adjudicate “applications and appeals under various environmental and planning statutes.” Despite scores of appeals of industrial wind turbine project approvals, only two or three have been partially successful, with final outcomes to be determined. They are most likely fated to lose, because the laws have been written to guarantee appellant failure.

In rural Ontario, the war on private property rights is on. The Liberal government is overhauling four provincial land use plans. Taking steps to “protect natural heritage and water, grow the Greenbelt” sounds sensible, but the objectives to limit “suburban sprawl” and “address climate change” give the game away. Rest assured that property owners will have less and less say over what they are allowed to do with the land they own, until they are forced to abandon it. Many victims of industrial wind turbine torture have already been driven out of their homes.

…Continue Reading

Posted in Cap & Trade, Carbon Trading, Junk Science, Ontario Politics, Sustainability | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

An Inconvenient Stewardship

Oak Ridges Moraine scene
painting by Oak Ridges Moraine artist Harry Stooshinoff

The Oak Ridges Moraine region was a model of how community stewardship of the great aquifer, which was dubbed the “rain barrel” of southern Ontario, could become a driving force for protective environmental legislation such as the ORM Protection and Conservation Act.

Development is carefully controlled to protect water resources in municipalities like City of Kawartha Lakes. So the imposition of greed energy on the communities has been seen as an insult to their established culture of stewardship.

Protecting the Oak Ridges Moraine was an important issue for the Liberals during the election campaign which saw Dalton McGuinty elected Premier in 2003. Dalton McGuinty is now an Independent Director of a renewable energy company:

Key people..

Dalton McGuinty, Independent Director
Innergex Renewable Energy, Inc.

Description Innergex Renewable Energy Inc.

Innergex Renewable Energy, Inc. operates as a Canadian independent renewable power producer that develops, owns and operates run-of-river hydroelectric facilities, wind farms, and solar photovoltaic farms, with operations in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Idaho. It operates through the following segments: hydroelectric generation, wind power generation, solar power generation and site development. The company was founded on October 25, 2002 and is headquartered in Longueuil, Canada. – h/t Jane Zednik

Undoubtedly it is only coincidence that those who have helped industries beyond the call of duty end up working in them at a high level… One might almost see an advantage in having the political process helped along

There are currently 3 wind projects moving ahead on the Oak Ridges Moraine: Settler’s Landing, Snowy Ridge & Sumac Ridge.

Keeping up with electricity demand means covering 108,000 square miles with new wind turbines every year –Robert Bryce

  Oak ridges moraine tree clearing ChsYY7LUUAAT 7E
Thanks @environmentont – only 5000 more #trees to be cut down on the Oak Ridges Moraine for Sumac Ridge #wind plant.

Volunteers such as Jane Zednik, long a water warrior before she was conscripted into the wind war, possess infinitely more knowledge about the local natural heritage than do the hirelings of the wind company or the OMNRF.  

As we know from our own experience, those “experts” often omit and/or ignore important habitat, apparently without consequence. They attempted it in this case, but encountered local opposition impressive enough to be qualified as an expert witness.  

It is wonderful to see politicians like Heather Stauble, Councillor, City of Kawartha Lakes, actually representing the citizens’ best interests over those of the developers.  She pointed out that their MPP Laurie Scott asked a very pertinent question:

“Does the Minister believe it is appropriate for the Government to approve a project that puts out inaccurate and incomplete information?”

On May 12th, 2016, MPP Scott issued the following Media Release:

From: Scott, Laurie
Sent: May 12, 2016 3:25 PM


May 12, 2016

QUEEN’S PARK – Today, MPP Laurie Scott criticized the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change for allowing a wind project near Bethany to disrupt the sensitive moraine.

After the Snowy Ridge energy project went through a lengthy process with the Environmental Review Tribunal, the project’s footprint has now expanded over what was already approved by the tribunal and the Ministry. Scott pointed out that the project’s expansion did not receive any public review or input.

“The modification report is 165 pages and the late expansion raises questions as to whether the company was working in good faith with the Ministry and the tribunal,” said Scott. “Does the Minister believe it is appropriate for the government to approve a project that puts out inaccurate and incomplete information?”

Scott added that a stay was denied by the Minister himself, while he is allowing the project to proceed with construction.

The expansion of the project includes work in the environmentally-sensitive Oak Ridges Moraine. As well, the proposed route of the collector line will go through compensation habitat for species at risk, and cause potentially irreversible damage on surrounding wildlife.

The current government has disregarded the hydro-geologically sensitive area to welcome industrial turbines.

“Why is the Minister allowing industrial wind projects in protected areas like the Oak Ridges Moraine?” asked Scott.

– 30 –

For more information: Jason Wang | | 416-325-2771 | 416-432-7985

Watch the video

Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy -George Orwell, from 1984

5 million trees in Scotland

Update May 15th, 2016:

A number of people have questioned the accuracy of our statement that Dalton McGuinty is now a Director of Innergex, a renewable energy company.

Here is a link to the company’s corporate governance on its website and here is a link to their April 6, 2016 Notice of Annual General Meeting Circular which on page 10 identifies one of their directors, Dalton McGuinty, as the former Premier of Ontario.

Posted in Ontario Electricity Sector, Ontario Green Energy Act, Ontario Politics, Renewable Energy, Species at Risk, Wind Power | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

In the Meme Time

  Plants Love CO2
Why Scientist Disagree about Global Warming

The nastiness of wind power reality comes as such a visceral shock that many lack the moral courage to reject the “green” meme entirely.

Ontario’s anti-democratic Green Energy Act set off a wave of resistance which has unfortunately been hampered by divergent perceptions.

Fundamentally wind warriors fall into one of two camps: those who act as though there has just been some silly siting mistake and those who at least glimpse a bigger picture, don’t like what they see, but do not look away.  

It is daunting to face the fact that the politicians we expected to represent our interests are undermining our individual rights and security!

Ontario is however not alone in having an army of kleptocrats who, under the save-the-planet meme, are stealing our very birthright. Yet such is the case and there are political historians as well as scientists who are sceptical of the crise-du-jour.  

We should not blind ourselves to truth in hopes things will not get worse – they have in countries which have already gone down this slippery green slope towards the New World Order.  

The United Nations adopted the climate change agenda in the 1980s and has since developed it into an all-consuming, ambitious framework through which to tackle a number of earlier progressive causes, from gender inequality to sustainable development. 
… Michael Hart

Germany, the model chosen for us by a ruling class which styles itself as morally superior to the masses, is once again driving Jews out of Europe, and possibly Britain out of the EU, using the dual supremacist death-cult regressive theocracies – Environmentalism and Islam. 

Christopher Booker explains

“The key to understanding the unique system of government known as the “European Union” is that everything about it is based on smoke and mirrors, with nothing ever being quite what it is pretending to be.

… To this day, the European Commission website deliberately confuses two quite incompatible models for a future “United States of Europe” put forward after the Second World War. Its account starts with Winston Churchill’s call for a “United States of Europe” in 1946, which led two years later to the “intergovernmental” Council of Europe. But no one was more scornful of this than the Frenchman Jean Monnet, who had a wholly different model in mind, first conceived back in the Twenties. His “United States of Europe” would be centred on an entirely new kind of “supranational” government, able to overrule the vetoes of any of its individual member states. It was Monnet’s vision that won, through the “Schuman Declaration” he drafted in 1950.

Sadly the people of Ontario have few political options; this was made abundantly clear when OPCP leader Patrick Brown, while responding critically to the Liberal budget gave his support to the “climate change” meme.  In so doing he took the side of the craven or deluded against the Canadians who are smart enough and strong enough to have resisted the relentless propaganda.

In Ross McKitrick Canadians have a staunch ally and role model as the lone voice of reason at the Manning Centre talks which seemed suspiciously rich in irony or theocracy…

The green dogma has always been delusional but is now becoming disastrous. Peter Foster in Return of the Green Shaft points out:

Then there is Dion, who is leading the Government’s climate charge on the barricades of common sense. When Dion was Liberal Party Leader, his “Green Shift” – a melange of setting “the right” prices, subtly shifting taxes from consumption to production, and assiduously selecting technologies of the future – was as big an electoral lead balloon as it was a policy fantasy. But he’s back!

Dion was quoted as celebrating the Liberals’ mandate to install their environmental agenda. “Within this mandate, you have the ability for Canada to be part of the solution to climate change and not only part of the problem. And that’s fantastic.”

Foster reminds us of the math based on a peer-reviewed study by Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center:

Canada is responsible for 1.59 per cent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Thus nothing Canada can do – up to and including closing down the entire economy – would have any impact.

if all countries {emphasis added} achieve their INDCs, the impact – according to the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – will be a reduction in the global temperature by 2100 of 0.05 degrees Celsius {emphasis added}. That’s right, one-twentieth of one degree.

As Lomborg says: “Paris is being sold as the summit where we can help ‘heal the planet’ and ‘save the world’. It is no such thing.”

So it’s not fantastic, it’s ridiculous, meaningless. Remember those numbers: 1.59%, one-twentieth of a degree by 2100.

Recently Dr. Tim Ball again wrote about the origins and objectives of the “green” meme.

Despite all the revelations about corrupted science and their failed predictions (projections) CO2 remains central to global attention about energy and environment.

Without a courageous and unified backlash against the ‘green’ meme we will be stuck in it for a long time.

Posted in Junk Science, Ontario Green Energy Act, Uncategorized, Wind Power | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Follow the money, it’s all about the green

We recently posted on how Ethanol was a win-win for political parties and their corporatist friends and how  Governments supported its use despite being less environmentally friendly than undiluted gasoline and more harmful to human health.
Other than the financial backscratching here is another reason why Governments are so enamoured of Ethanol and similar ‘climate mitigation’ schemes.

The price of gas at the pump in Ontario is made up of the sum of the costs of production delivered to the gas station plus the profits made by all in the chain of distribution.  

In 2013 (and based on the cost of crude oil at the time) this equalled approximately 88.2¢/L on average in Canada.  Included in the price is the couple of pennies a litre profit made by the gas station and the anemic 6.2% net profit made by the oil companies.  

Added to the price of the gasoline is the Federal Excise Tax on gasoline, currently 10%, the Provincial Gasoline Tax currently 14.7% and the HST currently 13% added to that will soon be a carbon tax, as yet undefined, as promised by Premier Wynne.  If Ontario follows BC’s lead the tax will probably be somewhere around 7¢/Litre (however Ontario’s carbon tax will not be revenue-neutral and as such is unlikely to succeed in the way BC’s has).

Here in Ontario we are fortunate, so far, compared to Vancouver where not only do they have an added carbon tax, but the city of Vancouver levies an 11% tax on every litre of gasoline sold…

2014 is the latest year for which reliable government data is available.  For the purposes of this analysis we’ll use the annual 2014 average price of gasoline in Southern Ontario which was $1.268/L (in Norther Ontario it was $1.332/L).  
Based on that average price the Federal Excise Tax was 12.68¢/L, the Provincial Gas Tax was 18.6396¢/L, the HST was 14.5876¢/L

In addition to the Ontario subsidies, Ethanol production receives a 6¢/L Federal production subsidy.  Ethanol has 32% less energy than gasoline.  That means gasoline mixed with 10% Ethanol (Federally mandated 5% + Provincially mandated 5%) has 3.2% less energy than pure gasoline.  Given that the amount of energy in a fuel determines the work that can be extracted from it, i.e. the distance driven, this means that one can drive less far on a litre of gasoline diluted with 10% Ethanol.

In 2014 Ontario gross gasoline sales were 16.1781 billion litres which we can assume for the purposes of this approximation, were all 10% Ethanol.  Had pure gasoline been available to Ontarians the same number of kilometres could have been driven using roughly 15.66 billion litres of gasoline. 

Those 16.1781 billion litres of gasoline required 1.61871 billion litres of Ethanol which at the 2014 average price of 67.8623¢/L resulted in additional revenues of $1.09849 billion in sales and a Federal subsidy of $97.1226 million.  There are no rational reasons for using Ethanol in gasoline, so in the absence of government mandates the industry would never have received these additional revenues.

That extra 518 million litres cost Ontario drivers, at 2014’s average price, at least an extra $656.824 million.

That extra 518 million litres resulted in the following revenues to the Federal and Ontario governments:

Federal Excise Tax: $65.6824 million
Ontario Provncial Gas Tax: $96.5531 million
Federal portion of HST: $29.0630 million
Provincial portion of HST: $46.5008 million

That amounts to a total tax revenue for 2014 alone of $237.7993 million – not a bad return for not producing anything… and we understand better why the Ethanol policy is a win-win-win for the Provincial Government, Liberal Party and Ethanol producers.

Posted in Junk Science, Ontario Politics, Renewable Energy, Subsidies | Tagged , , | 1 Comment