Ontario, Canada: A Mirror of America’s Economic Future Mortgaged To Falsified Climate Science

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

clip_image002If Obama’s policies on energy and environment were truly original they would be worth consideration, but they are not. He dismisses claims that

The economy will lose millions of jobs and billions in growth. He said, “Let’s face it, that’s what [critics] always say,” and “every time … the warnings of the cynics have been wrong.

Wrong! They failed disastrously everywhere and every time they were applied. Figure 1 above shows a poster from Britain, one of several European nations on the path

Obama pursues.

Ironically, Maurice Strong, architect of the false claims of human produced CO2 causing catastrophic global warming/ climate change, provided a classic example.

Obama and other world leaders are basing their policies on the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was the climate science agency created by Maurice Strong through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and presented to the world in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Figure 2 shows a simple flow chart of the structures created to control the political and scientific sectors to achieve a political agenda.



Figure 2

Strong chaired the Rio 92 conference and in the same year was appointed to Ontario Hydro. He became Chair and was given free rein by Bob Rae, socialist Premier of the Province. He set about applying the philosophy and policies enshrined in the UNEP program. These were designed to demonize CO2 as the byproduct of fossil fuel driven industries and nations. It was speculated by Strong in his comments to Elaine Dewar cited in The Cloak of Green (1995). He suggested,

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?


Dewar asked why he didn’t enter politics to implement his plan. He essentially said you can’t do anything as a politician, but knew a political vehicle was required. He knew that convincing individual governments was almost impossible, as Kyoto negotiations proved. His experience told him the United Nations (UN) was his vehicle.

Dewar wrote that he liked the UN because:

He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.

Dewar concluded:

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.


Strong had similar powers and objectives as Chairman of Ontario Hydro and became the architect of that Provinces problems. A 1997 article titled “Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future” says,

Maurice Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate people, institutions, governments, and events to achieve the outcome he desires. It concludes, The fox has been given the assignment, and all the tools necessary, to repair the henhouse to his liking.

This applied to his UN role, but also to his Ontario Hydro role.

Under the guise of claiming Ontario’s debt was a result of expensive nuclear power plants he set about implementing an anti-fossil fuel agenda. One commentator referencing a later scandal involving Strong called “Hydrogate says,

Within no time of his arrival, he firmly redirected and re-structured Ontario Hydro. At the time, Ontario Hydro was hell-bent on building many more nuclear reactors, despite dropping demand and rising prices. Maurice Strong grabbed the Corporation by the scruff of the neck, reduced the workforce by one third, stopped the nuclear expansion plans, cut capital expenditures, froze the price of electricity, pushed for sustainable development, made business units more accountable.

Sounds good, but it was a path to inadequate supply. Key is the phrase he, pushed for sustainable development. In Strong’s, keynote speech at the Rio Earth Summit he said:

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.


He’d already created mechanisms to eliminate fossil fuels and bring about reduction and destruction of western economies. Ontario was his personal application and they were a disaster.

Despite evidence of the failures, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki became involved and urged Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty to continue Strong’s disastrous policies. Suzuki was forced to resign from his own Foundation because his political activities violated his tax situation. As one commentator noted,

The McGuinty government has a major electrical power problem, one created by its decision to use the power system as a political policy tool. This policy has resulted in the doubling of rates in Ontario to a level higher than in most U.S. states. Ontarios former industrial advantage has disappeared, while the government has been pretending that nothing is wrong.

Because of these energy policies Ontario’s economy continued to decline. The real impact of the decline is offset by the great Canadian socialist policy of equalization. So-called “have” provinces with thriving economies pay money through the Federal government to “have not” provinces. It was Ontario’s destiny as equalization covered political failures

If this continues this is not hyperbole, this is a fact Ontario will become a have not province in confederation. And it will be Premier (Dalton) McGuintys legacy that he in two terms took Ontario from being the strongest economic province in the federation to a have not province.

Replacing nuclear and fossil fuel energies with alternate energies drives up the costs and creates a multitude of other problems. A US Senate report notes,

Comparisons of wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas and coal sources of power coming on line by 2015 show that solar power will be 173% more expensive per unit of energy delivered than traditional coal power, 140% more than nuclear power and natural gas and 92% more expensive than wind power. Wind power is 42% more expensive than nuclear and natural gas power. Wind and solars capacity factor or availability to supply power is around 33%, which means 67% of the time wind and solar cannot supply power and must be supplemented by a traditional energy source such as nuclear, natural gas or coal.


Changes in Ontario illustrate the problems. Wind turbulence restricts the number of turbines to 5 to 8 turbines per 2.6 square kilometers. With average wind speeds of 24 kph it needs 8,500 turbines covering 2590 square kilometers to produce the power of a 1000 MW conventional station. Ontario closed two 1000MW plants in 2011 – the Lambton and the Nanticoke coal fired plants. Besides the land, (5,180 km2) you still need coal-fired plants running at almost 100 percent for back up. Strong’s policies eliminate the back up, so you either have dramatically increased costs, inadequate power or both.

Source: Steve Hunter

In 2008 Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that the

notion of no coal . . . is an illusion, and he favored a cap-and-trade system. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, Its just that it will bankrupt them because theyre going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas thats being emitted.


It’s only valid if science supports the claim that CO2, because of human production, is causing warming or climate change. It doesn’t, so there is no scientific need to replace fossil fuels.

Focus on CO2 and the assumption an increase causes temperature increase are built into the computer models. William Kinninmonth, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre explains,

… current climate modeling is essentially to answer one question: how will increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (generated from human activity) change earths temperature and other climatological statistics?”…. It is heroic to assume that such a view is sufficient basis on which to predict future climate.

Indian Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said

science is politics in climate change; climate science is politics and we are being led by our noses by Western (climate) scientists who have less of a scientific agenda and more of a political agenda.

He should add that western politicians like Obama are promoting energy policies based on falsified political science and alternative energies that don’t work. Ontario, under the control of the grandmaster Maurice Strong, tried and they’ve already failed. It is unadulterated evidence that pursuing them still is purely political. As always the people will pay the price as they have in many jurisdiction beyond Ontario. An appropriate quote to explain such blind behavior comes from former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev; “Politicians are the same every all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river. Figure 1 cartoons the alternative energy bridge to nowhere in the UK.

I once said the Kyoto Protocol was a political solution to a non-existent climate problem. Obama’s energy policy is more of the same. It is more inexcusable because it failed everywhere it was tried, including by Maurice Strong, the father of the deception that global warming and climate change are a man made problem.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 3, 2014 10:13 am

Not to mention Ontario’s electricity energy fiasco:
“Today, Ontario electricity costs average over 9 cents per kWh, delivery costs 3 cents per kWh or more, the 0.7-cent debt retirement charge is still being charged, plus a new 8% provincial sales tax. Additional regulatory charges take all-in costs to well over 15 cents per kWh.. The increase in the past 10 years averaged over 11% annually. Recently, the Energy Minister forecast the final consumer electricity bill will jump another 33% over the next three years and 42% in the next 5 years.”

June 3, 2014 10:19 am

Obama is also wrong because when he says it ‘never happens’, that is because the alternate is never tried. If the world was a closed system, you could make such a stupid statement. As it is not, then making such a stupid statement merely demonstrates the stupidity of the speaker. Not the projections of the others.

June 3, 2014 10:20 am

Errata: Instead of “world was a closed system’, it should be “the US was a closed system”.

June 3, 2014 10:26 am

Te last time I figured out the cost of electricity here in Ontario, based on what I was charged, divided by KWh used, it was 24.9 cents per KWh. I am sure it is higher now but don’t have the stomach to figure it out again. The writer forgot that Hydro One also multiplies usage and delivery by a factor to offset line loss. There is a reason I live here only my mandatory 153 days of the year and those days are in warm months when I should use the furnace less. The rest of the year is spent in the Bahamas where I pay .10 cents per KWh and do not need a furnace.

George Lawson
June 3, 2014 10:26 am

Maurice Strong is a danger to society, especially when he is able to manipulate the President of the United States of America to bring in Draconian policies designed by Strong to halt and even reverse the growth and standard of living of the developed world, in order to satisfy his twisted views on what life should be all about. His dangerous policies should be exposed at every opportunity, and every attempt should be made to rid him of the too powerful posts that he appears to be adept at securing for himself.

June 3, 2014 10:28 am

Update, Ontario is now a have not province. Having said that however, Newfoundland/Labrador, Saskatchewan, and Alberta are not. Which means these three provinces, the only three in all of Canada that provide the “equalization payments” for Ontario’s failed politics. But Ontario is not the only have not province in Canada. Moreover, Ontario is have an election as we speak – you guessed it. The same liberal government, led by another free spending liberal this time around, that led them into have not status is leading in the polls. Go figure. Elections have consequences. You get what you voted for. Unfortunately in this particular case, my province, Alberta, will have to pay for their leftists failed ideas.

Paul Westhaver
June 3, 2014 10:31 am

Dr Ball,
Good timing on this article considering the Ontario election debate tonight.
Also, check out Brian Lilley’s interview with Prof Ross McKitrick (UGuelph) re: the EPA action of yesterday.

June 3, 2014 10:46 am

Storage or load matching. Almost any renewable suffers from intermittent supply. You need to match the demand load to the output (ie. solar running AC) or figure out how to cost effectively store massive amounts of energy.
I’d be interested in an update from Mr Watts about his ongoing solar experiment. Hopefully saving him some money.

Tim OBrien
June 3, 2014 10:58 am

But…but…but they promised us that rainbows, unicorns and fairydust would WORK!
The common theme I’ve found for everyone that pushes this stuff is that they have no understanding on how things work, how to build anything or keep it working. And they get very very mad when you tell them the physical reality of why something can’t work in the REAL WORLD.

June 3, 2014 11:08 am

The situation in Ontario , Canada illustrates what can happen when overzealous and financially irresponsible environmentalists combine forces with the” tax and spend” liberals to trash the economy of a previously prosperous province. The Ontario environmental model was tailored after the German model which is also in a similar energy and environment crisis now with run-away energy costs .In Ontario, the electricity rates are among the highest in North America and manufacturing businesses are fleeing the province to regions with the lower energy costs. All coal fired power plants were shut down or will be shortly . Much of this mess is the result of direct action taken by the crisis and scandal prone Liberal government headed by a Premier who chose to solicit and award long term multi-million dollar environmental agreements with foreign suppliers without involving the normal parliamentary review and checks . He has since resigned in disgrace having cancelled gas plants that cost the taxpayers a billion dollars in cancellation fees just to gain more liberal seats at the next election. Obama seems to be following the same tragic play book step by step driving up energy costs for no legitimate reason and thus driving jobs and businesses out of United States. All this will result in no real gain in environment goals as the annual temperatures in United Sates have been dropping since 1998, making the whole plan to reduce carbon dioxide by 30% totally unnecessary but costing the country dearly meanwhile.

June 3, 2014 11:09 am

re: Maurice Strong, intimate ties to the PRC and scandalous behavior in the UN’s “Oil for Food” program wrt to Iraq sent him scurrying to hide out in Beijing.

The U.N.’s Man of Mystery
Is the godfather of the Kyoto treaty a public servant or a profiteer?
Updated Oct. 11, 2008 12:01 a.m. ET

Alan Robertson
June 3, 2014 11:11 am

“Our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions.”
-“Facing Down Armageddon: Environment at a Crossroads,” essay by Maurice Strong in World Policy Journal, Summer, 2009
“If we don’t change, our species will not survive… Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.
– Maurice Strong, September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine
“Population must be stabilized, and rapidly. ”
“Environment must be integrated into every aspect of our economic policy and decision-making as well as the culture and value systems which motivate economic behaviour.”
“We must act on the precautionary principle guided by the best evidence available.”
-Maurice Strong ,opening statement to: the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 June 1992

June 3, 2014 11:21 am

Dr Ball – Bang on as usual.
Some more context on Ontario for readers…
– Population: ~13 million
– GDP: ~600 Billion CAD
– Debt: ~300 Billion CAD
– Deficit: ~12 Billion CAD(2014)
– Provincial Govt Employees: ~1.1 Million
Debt has tripled under this government and continues to rise.
The problems the incumbent liberals have this time out:
– Scandals involving corruption and cronyism seem to have been coming out of the woodwork for the last few years
– The province, long a major manufacturing base is losing a lot of jobs to neighbouring provinces and US states. Electricity prices have gone from the lowest in North America to the most expensive
– Interest on the debt now runs at ~1 Billion per month. After healthcare and education this is the province’s biggest bill
There is no question the disastrous Green Energy Act has been the main culprit in this disaster, but public union activism is making it very likely the Liberals will be back in June 12th.

June 3, 2014 11:23 am

Where is figure 1?
REPLY: Top image, read the text -A

Stephen Richards
June 3, 2014 11:28 am

My 9 year old grand daughter could manipukate a social organiser

Tom O
June 3, 2014 11:37 am

“Tim OBrien says:
June 3, 2014 at 10:58 am
But…but…but they promised us that rainbows, unicorns and fairydust would WORK!
The common theme I’ve found for everyone that pushes this stuff is that they have no understanding on how things work, how to build anything or keep it working. And they get very very mad when you tell them the physical reality of why something can’t work in the REAL WORLD.”
I couldn’t disagree with you more. As Strong’s comment about reducing the industrialized world to pre industrialized levels certainly points out. The intent and “common theme of those that are pushing this stuff” is to reduce humanity to caveman levels – all except, of course, their elite selves. In this manner, the world get’s depopulated to Turner’s acceptable population of about 700 million, or so, and these willing serfs will be thankful for all the crumbs the annointed elite toss them. It is nothing about saving the planet, it is not because they don’t know “how the real world works,” it is all about living in Utopia for them, and in the slums for those fortunate enough to be allowed to live and support them.

Reply to  Tom O
June 4, 2014 6:22 am

@Tom O

s Strong’s comment about reducing the industrialized world to pre industrialized levels certainly points out. The intent and “common theme of those that are pushing this stuff” is to reduce humanity to caveman levels – all except, of course, their elite selves.

The Morlocks and Eloi.

john robertson
June 3, 2014 11:43 am

Good comment Dr Ball.
The 2016 campaign will be USA wide; “Welcome to Ontar I Owe, I owe.”
Hopefully the voters will boot the lying Liberals but there is a brightside if they don’t.
The sooner Ontario crashes the better, poverty goes a long way in smartening up career parasites.
And the load of carrying both Quebec and Ontario will finally kill that wretched equalization scheme.
Open revolt from the fiscally responsible provinces.

June 3, 2014 11:45 am

There should be some kind of award for most notable policy and managed screw ups awarded every four years to allow audit trails some time to catch up to them. I hope Alberta can benefit from this with industry relocation and absolute advantages. Voting with their feet is a powerful statement with real effects on the economic and tax base from which it flees.

Mac the Knife
June 3, 2014 11:48 am

A bit off topic: The Enso Meter finally moved a tick ‘right’ of +0.5…..
On topic: So very nice to know our US prez is following the Ontario socialist self-destruction path on CAGW. Our Dear Ruler in the USA can’t even manage that much originality…… but I guess that saves time to spend other peoples money on more golf and A-list parties, eh?
I sure hope the utilities up in Ontario are just mothballing those coal fired power plants. You guys are going to need them…. just as we are here in the ‘Lower 48’.

C.M. Carmichael
June 3, 2014 12:05 pm

Just an Ontario electrical update! according to this site. http://www.sygration.com/gendata/today.html coal was making more electricity than Biomass last hour.

Robert W Turner
June 3, 2014 12:17 pm

There’s some really interesting data that would be very neat to see how it is correlated to state and federal renewable energy mandates. I don’t have the time to delve too deep into it but after some quick research here is how renewable mandates have affected the energy rates where I live:
From 1990-2009 average energy rates increased by 21%, or 1.1% each year. A mandate for utilities to buy 20% of their energy from renewables by 2020 was passed in 2009 and since energy rates have increased by 17% (data only available up to 2012) or 5.6% each year. This is an increase of 500% in the rate of electricity price increases and that’s only 3 years into the plan and a much larger proportion of these increases have been given to residential costumers. It must be working though, I have not spotted any man-bear-pigs around here!

Harry Passfield
June 3, 2014 12:18 pm

Eve says (upthread): “There is a reason I live here only my mandatory 153 days of the year and those days are in warm months when I should use the furnace less. The rest of the year is spent in the Bahamas…”
Eve: Would you consider adopting me? I am house-trained.

June 3, 2014 12:23 pm

It is a crime to hand control of energy generation and supply to activists.
Cold and poverty kill people.
CAGW threatens to become a holocaust.

June 3, 2014 12:35 pm

Just for context, that “green isn’t working” poster is an intended throwback to a famous UK election campaign poster: “Labour isn’t working”. Image here:

Harry Passfield
June 3, 2014 12:41 pm

Dr Ball: Many thanks for this very informative article (sorry, parable). I’d heard of Strong but didn’t realise the lengths he wanted to go to to bring down western civilisation. Maybe, if what Skiphill posts is true, he is surely back with his masters in Beijing. I do hope they see him as a failure – with whatever oriental punishment they figure is appropriate for him.
I shall make sure your article gets a further distribution to my mailing list.

June 3, 2014 12:50 pm

One more industry says bye to Northern Ontario
I’m still trying to find the North Bay story about a plant that is facing closure, but I don’t think it is this one. Basically, the owner said that not only is his electricity rate unmanageable, but Ontario sells cheap power to Quebec, New York and Michigan…places that just happen to house his competitors.

June 3, 2014 1:00 pm

“Ontario sells cheap power to Quebec, New York and Michigan…places that just happen to house his competitors”
It’s actually worse than that.
One of the perverse side effects of the excess electricity Ontario now produces (excess due to ever declining industry usage) is that the province actually pays NY, MI and QC to take it so the grid remains balanced.
This was to the tune of $1 Billion in 2013.
So Ontario consumers pay for the most expensive power in North America while simultaneously paying neighbouring grids to take it off our hands.

June 3, 2014 1:07 pm

Dissemination is the art of presenting false information to confuse motives and obfuscate actions taken. The purpose is often to hide the truth of the actions of the disseminators .
While serving in the military during the Southeast Asian conflict my assignment was to produce such misdirections as a method of confusion to the enemy. Eventually it was also used as a tool to deceive the American public as well.
This administration is desperately in need of issues that will draw attention away from the total failure of their policies. It is very apparent that dissemination of information is the vehicle being used for this purpose. I am positive that those who are lying to achieve such ends are perfectly aware of the falseness of a carbon crisis, and they have recruited a cadre of useful idiots who for money or fame have been willing to prostitute their profession for money, power.
I make no claim that all AGW believers are corrupt. ( after all they aren’t politicians) but many have walked the walk for so long they can not distinguish reality from fantasy. While this is true in many believers involved in many fields, most of the time it is a minor annoyance , in this case it could be a disaster.

Tom in Florida
June 3, 2014 1:13 pm

albertalad says:
June 3, 2014 at 10:28 am
“… Moreover, Ontario is have an election as we speak – you guessed it. The same liberal government, led by another free spending liberal this time around, that led them into have not status is leading in the polls. Go figure….”
It is easy to figure. Study Sales 101. People buy on emotion and “what’s in it for me”. Liberals have mastered that approach constantly appealing to the emotions and greed of voters. One would assume that facts and logic would win the election but nope. There are many failed salespersons out there that thought the same, hopelessly presenting facts with logical explanations intending to get a factual and logical positive decision. You don’t sell the steak, you sell the sizzle.

John F. Hultquist
June 3, 2014 1:24 pm

Thanks, Scute.
’cause I was thinking it looked more like a fence with barbed wire.

Leo Geiger
June 3, 2014 1:25 pm

Ontario’s problems can’t be reduced to Tim Ball’s overly simplistic tale about electricity cost and renewables. Don Drummond, former Chief Economist of TD Bank, headed a commission that produced a report on the challenges facing Ontario and recommended solutions. If anyone is interested in what is actually going on in Ontario, take some time to browse the report from the Drummond Commission:
The financial situation is a big, complex problem. Electricity cost is one small part of it. But since the subject has been raised, it is worth noting that subsidies to fossil fuels are also identified as an issue to be addressed:

The federal government has provided little support for Ontario’s move towards green energy. Yet it provides direct and indirect subsidies to Canada’s oil and gas sectors worth $1.4 billion annually, in addition to $2.0 billion in total spending for carbon capture and storage, the Clean Energy Fund and the ecoEnergy Technology program — all of which are primarily spent in two provinces. Even where the federal government has promised support for clean energy, most has been directed to fossil fuels and projects that do not build on Ontario’s strengths. Ontario needs fair and equitable support for its clean energy initiatives.

Canada would be better off with an end to all of these subsidies, whether directed to fossil fuels or renewables, and the adoption of a simple *revenue neutral* carbon tax like the successful one currently in place in British Columbia.

June 3, 2014 1:26 pm

Professor Anne Glover, Cief Scientific Advisor to EU President Barroso, has accused the EU of twisting facts to fit a political agenda. (Whats new?) But she cannot have done her career much good.
There is a report in EurActiv on her talk to the Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

Harry Passfield
June 3, 2014 1:39 pm

Leo Geiger: “Canada would be better off with an end to all of these subsidies, whether directed to fossil fuels or renewables…”
Can you define what you mean by subsidies, especially in relation to fossil-fuels? And can you tell us whether these (fossil-fuel) ‘subsidies’ also apply to ‘renewables’? For example, in the UK, some would claim that the 5% VAT rate (instead of 20% VAT) for energy was a subsidy to fossil-fuel yet, it applies to energy generated from renewables equally. Furthermore, a tax-break for the consumer is really letting him/her keep more of their money, rather than a ‘green subsidy’ which is a way of taking money from the consumer and giving it to wealthy subsidy-farmers.
But I’m sure you can clear that one up for me.

John F. Hultquist
June 3, 2014 1:52 pm

Harry Passfield says:
June 3, 2014 at 12:41 pm
“I’d heard of Strong but didn’t realise . . .

Here is something you might like to read. It is one of the first articles I found after getting a fast (non-dial-up) connection.
It mentions the link between M. Strong and A. Gore, and much more.
UN Infects Science with Cancer of Global Warming
Edward F. Blick, PhD
Oct. 3, 2008

June 3, 2014 1:53 pm

Not all of us in Ontario are idiots. We have been trying to get rid of the Liberals since they were first elected. The problem is that too many people, nurses and all health care workers, teachers and all education workers, all public service workers, etc. owe their jobs to the Liberals and will not vote them out. This is what happens when half of your population works for the government and they are called the night before the election and told to get out and vote for the Liberals.
As for Harry Passfield and all the other people stuck in Ontario. You can move, sure it takes some doing but it is not impossible. Most of my friends are gone or are doing as we are, 5 months in Ontario and the rest in a warm country. It just took a friend of mine who sold her condo in downtown TO and moved to Mexico to make the rest of us start to look around.

June 3, 2014 1:58 pm

Leo Geiger
You said
‘”Canada would be better off with an end to all of these subsidies, whether directed to fossil fuels or renewables, and the adoption of a simple *revenue neutral* carbon tax like the successful one currently in place in British Columbia.”
A carbon tax to fight a non existing global warming threat makes little sense to me. A tax to deal with major pollution control and spills, global cooling and repair after winter disasters , flood control, etc., might get people to listen .

Crispin in Waterloo
June 3, 2014 3:14 pm

Carmichael put it there already – I repeat it because you can see in real time what you get:
All the generating machines in Ontario in real time. The cost per kwh is there too so you know when to turn on your otherwise-totally-unviable-alternative-energy-source to make a profit at the expense of Grandma Q Public

June 3, 2014 3:23 pm

Leo Geiger
You said
‘”Canada would be better off with an end to all of these subsidies, whether directed to fossil fuels or renewables, and the adoption of a simple *revenue neutral* carbon tax like the successful one currently in place in British Columbia.”
I will not agree that the BC carbon tax is successful. It is successful in making most BC drivers go across either the US border or the Albera one for gasoline. BC thinks they are successful because gasoline sales have declined. However public buildings such as hospitals and schools are paying big portions of their budgets for the carbon tax, and of course, it hits the poor the hardest. The only group it is successful for is the BC government and the Canadian government as BC citizens have to pay GST on their carbon tax. It is not revenue neutral.

Steve from Rockwood
June 3, 2014 3:24 pm

If memory serves me Maurice Strong wanted to set up an off-shore (tax haven) company to buy Costa Rican rain forest to offset pollution in developed countries – and got pretty close to getting his way. This was 20-30 years ago. Clearly a man ahead of his time.
I live in Ontario and my electricity averages about $0.16 – $0.18 per kWh depending on usage, including taxes.

Mike H
June 3, 2014 3:41 pm

Lou Geiger, If you define the success of the BC carbon tax as billions of dollars dging south of the border and into Alberta; schools and hospitals being forced into paying it and budget short falls, but politicians finding yet another way to syphen off more public money and put it in the hands of their buddies, you are correct. I on the other hand, refer to that as legal theft.
The only true subsidy I can find is accelerated depreciation on equipment. In addition, take a look at the royalties we receive and tell me they aren’t worth th e$1.4 billion in subsidies (which don’t exist), and tell me they aren’t worth it.
BTW, I’m happily going to Costco Bellingham tomorrow to fill up, bring back chicken, cheese and milk and save about $50 – $75 by doing so. Might by some shoes and save even more.

Mike H
June 3, 2014 3:42 pm

Eve, just read your comment. Happy I could support you.

June 3, 2014 3:51 pm

We’ve just gone through exactly the same thing in Australia.
And now trying to piece the broken mess left behind by six short years of socialist driven government.
But removing a socialist bent and corrupt government appears to be the “easy”part.
It’s removing the financial “landmines” they leave in their wake before they explode that has the real crippling affect on any incoming government.
As each one goes off the financial hit on government budget stymies their own policy implementation, to fix what the socialist government wrecked.
From 20 billion in the bank 6 short years ago. To a projected 600 billion debt is telling the same story that is being told around the world.
Be warned.
What Australia is experiencing right now is a window into the future of Canada,America, England and any other country that chooses to “experiment with socialism.
It doesn’t work, ask Adolph.

June 3, 2014 4:02 pm

The Godfather of AGW is Canada’s genocidal psychopath: Maurice Strong
Maurice Strong had a fantasy that he hired mercenaries to take world leaders hostage in Copenhagen and, in the absence of a commitment to the 350 ppm carbon cap, kill them all.
Strong hired Paul Jr. to work for him during a vacation from university. “We controlled many companies, controlled political budgets,” Strong said of his time at Power Corporation. “Politicians got to know you and you them.”
Strong hired Martin into Power Corporation’s executive suite. He helped guide Martin towards unimaginable personal wealth – and even predicted Martin’s path to becoming prime minister. But Strong’s influence reaches farther than Canada. Indeed, compared to Strong’s American and European friends, Martin is a small star in the constellation.
Strong sits on boards with the Rockefellers and Mikhail Gorbachev and chairs private meetings of CEOs, including Bill Gates. He hobnobs with the world’s royalty, too – and with dictators and despots. He once did a business deal with arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, and wound up with a 200,000-acre ranch in Colorado – which his wife, Hanne, runs as a New Age spiritual colony.
He told Maclean’s magazine in 1976 that he was “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” He warns that if we don’t heed his environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos. “Do we really want this? Do we want Marx to be proven right, after all?” Strong asks. He shares the views of the most radical environmentalist street protester, but instead of shouting himself hoarse at a police barricade outside a global conference, he’s the secretary general inside, wielding the gavel.
Strong has always courted power – but not through any shabby election campaign. He was a Liberal candidate in the 1979 federal election, but pulled out a month before the vote.
How could a mere MP wield the kind of international control he had tasted in Stockholm? Journalist Elaine Dewar, who interviewed Strong, described why he loved the UN: “He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda,” wrote Dewar. “He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn’t have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives.”
Strong prefers power extracted from democracies, and kept from unenlightened voters. Most power-crazed men would stop at calling for a one world Earth Charter to replace the U.S. Constitution, or the UN Charter. But in an interview with his own Earth Charter Commission, Strong said “the real goal of the Earth Charter is it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and commitments of people everywhere.” Sounds like Maurice was hanging out at his spirit ranch without his sunhat on.
There has been no one like Maurice Strong before, except perhaps in fiction – Ernst Blofeld comes to mind, 007’s round-faced nemesis in You Only Live Twice. But Blofeld sought to attack the world order, to challenge it from some remote hideaway – not to co-opt it, and transform it from the inside as Strong does.
Blofeld would threaten a meeting of the UN; Strong would chair the meeting and script its agenda. Strangely, Strong once indulged his inner Blofeld, musing to a stunned reporter about a violent plot to take over the world through one of his many super-organizations.
In 1990, Strong told a reporter a fantasy scenario for the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland – where 1,000 diplomats, CEOs and politicians gather “to address global issues.”
Strong, naturally, is on the board of the World Economic Forum. “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?..In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
That’s Strong talking, but those are Blofeld’s words coming out. But this is no fictitious Bond movie villain speaking – it is the man who chaired the Rio Earth Summit and who was Kofi Annan’s senior adviser.
“This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse,” continued Strong, warming to his fantasy. “It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodities and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock markets and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can’t close… [the blueprint for 9/11, dammit; why did no-one listen?]”
Strong catches himself. “I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.” (You’re dead right, mate).

June 3, 2014 4:53 pm

For a wonderfully lucid history of the political and ideological movements that Maurice Strong , Barbara Ward and others harnessed in the 1970s and1980s , may I recommend Rupert Darwall’s ” The Age of Warming: A History”.
As Charles Moore said in reviewing the book in April last, the origins of the global warming theory lie in a cocktail of ideas including anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post -Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the spread of wealth and a belief in world government.
Above all, there is a dislike of the human race. The Club of Rome’s ” Mankind at the Turning point” said,” The world has cancer and the cancer is man.”
The final push of Strong and his ilk was to be Copenhagen in 2009. Gordon Brown warned of “50 days to avoid catastrophe”. Catastrophe for the green movement arrived nevertheless.
Now the war on carbon lumbers on with the political and bureaucratic elites in thrall to warmism.
We face the modern equivalent of the Thirty Years war.

June 3, 2014 5:25 pm

This is what has always fascinated me about Mr. McGuinty’s success in an age where people are so jaundiced about politicians. How did a reputation for uncommon earnestness, nobility and constancy survive such hypocrisy? How did it survive e-Health, and ORNGE, and Caledonia, and his rubbishing a sex-ed curriculum he’d never read, his near-disastrous green energy experiment? Will Mr. McGuinty’s reputation for bookish policy-wonkery survive Mr. Coyle’s revelation — I do not exaggerate —that he unilaterally decided to close every coal-fired power plant in the province because he read an article in Time magazine one day?


M Simon
June 3, 2014 5:40 pm

Leo Geiger says:
June 3, 2014 at 1:25 pm

What is the subsidy per KWh? That is the critical metric – not the gross amount. Although the gross amount is important.
We get the same in the US – billions in subsidies for extracted fuels. Somewhat fewer billions for “green energy”. It is when you look at the costs per KWh that you see how out of kilter “green” energy is.

Leo Geiger
June 3, 2014 5:46 pm

Harry Passfield says: Can you define what you mean by subsidies, especially in relation to fossil-fuels?
Not what I mean, what the Drummond Commission meant. Their number was based on Natural Resources Canada program spending (for example, federal money for carbon capture and storage programs) and tax breaks (such as federal tax credits for machinery purchased in the oil and gas sector). Since the Drummond report, some progress has been made such as ending support for oil and gas in the Atlantic investment tax credit. You can read about that on one of the “Action Plan” web sites the government has spent tens of millions of tax dollars advertising:

Through Canada’s Economic Action Plan, the Government is committed to improving the neutrality of the tax system across sectors of the economy and to supporting the commitment by G-20 Leaders to rationalize and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term.


Gary Pearse
June 3, 2014 5:57 pm

Ontario’s election is June 12th. Ontario voters are highly likely to re-elect the totally disgraced liberal party. They must be putting pschotropic drugs into the drinking water of a brain-numbed electorate to get away with what they have done to this rich, splendid place. A very uninspiring Hudak, leader of the Conservative party, is essentially one of the Liberals more potent weapons.

Leo Geiger
June 3, 2014 5:57 pm

herkimer says: A carbon tax to fight a non existing global warming threat makes little sense to me. A tax to deal with major pollution control and spills, global cooling and repair after winter disasters , flood control, etc., might get people to listen.
Your comment suggests some misunderstanding of what a revenue neutral carbon tax is. There is no extra money to spend on anything. All the revenue that comes in from the carbon tax is offset by other tax cuts such as income tax cuts. In British Columbia, by law they have to keep adjusting income tax rates to offset the carbon tax revenue.
In any case, tax payer money shouldn’t be spent on major pollution controls and spills. That should be the responsibility of the polluter or the spiller. Otherwise it ends up being another taxpayer subsidy. If a resource company makes an environmental mess, the resource company needs to clean it up. Unfortunately, time and time again, the scenario has played out where resources are extracted, “profits” flow to the resource company, and then they disappear leaving taxpayers to pay for the cleanup.
People who dislike subsidies for renewable energy should be just as upset about these types of hidden, deferred subsidies.

Reasonable Guy
June 3, 2014 6:10 pm

A link to a graph of electricity prices in Ontario Canada
They doubled between 2003 and 2013 and will increase even further into the future. There is a provincial election going on right now and while electricity rates are not being talked about the Liberals look like they might lose to the Conservatives based on wasteful policies and blunders.

June 3, 2014 6:21 pm

Unfortunately It seems it will be impossible to convince people that there is no AGW (just google news “global warming”. Your children will have to suffer the stupidity of this generation like 200 million Russians and 1 billion Chinese went through the poverty of communism LOLIt has taken at least 100 years for them to learn

Mac the Knife
June 3, 2014 6:21 pm

Sasha says:
June 3, 2014 at 4:02 pm
That is a truly chilling indictment! Truly chilling…….
Our Dear Ruler (see new June 2 2014 EPA Rules on coal fired power plants) seems to have copied the the Maurice Strong game plan. I may have to stop referring to Barack Hussein Obama as ‘Our Dear Ruler’ and address him here after as ‘Our Carbon Copy President’. It just seems more accurate… and three times ironic.

Leo Geiger
June 3, 2014 6:35 pm

Eve says: I will not agree that the BC carbon tax is successful. It is successful in making most BC drivers go across either the US border or the Albera one for gasoline.
I think you might have a little trouble arguing that the majority of the 4.5 million people living in BC get their gas across a border, before even trying to attribute it all to the carbon tax.
Some interesting numbers exploring this idea:

Steve from Rockwood
June 3, 2014 7:09 pm

“a revenue neutral tax”. I’d like to see just one example.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
June 4, 2014 1:01 pm

From Rockwood – revenue neutral tax
Look for the unicorns.

Useful Idiot
June 3, 2014 8:11 pm

What those Ontario energy policies have wrought:
The long, slow decline of the nation’s industrial heartland

June 3, 2014 8:28 pm

Thinking about having to decide and vote fills me with disgust. Am coming to hate politicians more than lawyers. Must be getting old

June 3, 2014 8:31 pm

The decline of Ontario is occuring for the obvious reason. Jobs and industry have moved west or out of country. No mystery

Robert Austin
June 3, 2014 9:01 pm

Sasha says:
June 3, 2014 at 4:02 pm
You are not the only one to see Maurice Strong as a Bondian super-villain..
My favourite Fenbeagle sketch titled “More is Strong – a Blow Field in China” shows strong as an Ernest Stavro Bloefeld character complete with cat. A must see.

June 3, 2014 10:43 pm

Harry Passfield says:
June 3, 2014 at 12:18 pm
Eve says (upthread): “There is a reason I live here only my mandatory 153 days of the year and those days are in warm months when I should use the furnace less. The rest of the year is spent in the Bahamas…”
Eve: Would you consider adopting me? I am house-trained.
Forget about Harold heck Eve I am house trained too BUT I’ll cut the lawn and fetch the groceries AND wash the windows! (even when you are in Ontario :-). )

June 3, 2014 10:44 pm

Leo Geiger, you seem to have pulled up the only article showing that BC’s gas sales have not declined. The one I pulled up was from some BC government group, showing what they had accomplished. It really does not matter. The BC carbon tax as are all carbon taxes, are just another tax to be paid to the government. Makes me happy again that I only live here 5 months of the year and can leave forever if it gets too cold. Take care, stay warm and don’t drive. BTW, my heat is on. I guess that is because it is only 10 on June 4/14. What is this, winter?

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
June 4, 2014 12:50 am

Leo Geiger says: June 3, 2014 at 1:25 pm

Canada would be better off with an end to all of these subsidies, whether directed to fossil fuels or renewables, and the adoption of a simple *revenue neutral* carbon tax like the successful one currently in place in British Columbia.

Poor Mr. Geiger. You really do need to give yourself a break and stop watching/listening to the CBC – and do yourself an even bigger favour by casting a more critical eye on the output from Ottawa’s Stewart Elgie and his “Sustainable Prosperity” shop.
Elgie is an Ottawa-based lawyer who has made far too many, well, unsustainable claims.
Not the least of which are contained in his so-called “papers” on the power and the glory of BC’s carbon tax. There’s a reason that there have been no increases in the rate of this daylight robbery for the last two years. Although I doubt you’ll ever hear about it from Elgie – or from BC’s “Pacific Carbon Trust”.
You see, notwithstanding Elgie’s – and Green MLA and IPCC-nik, Andrew Weaver’s – best efforts, as the BC Auditor General’s office has confirmed, you really shouldn’t believe everything that Elige or the Pacific Carbon Trust – or Weaver, for that matter – have tried to sell you.
Unless of course, not unlike Elgie, you’ve decided to redefine “successful”.
For details, pls see:
Of advocacy carts, evidence horses and Andrew Weaver’s carbon “baby”
BC Auditor General confirms enviro-activist Elgie’s “resignation” claim unsustainable

June 4, 2014 1:28 am

You think Ontario is bad? In Germany we’re paying close to 40 US cents per kWh because of failed enviro-energy-idiocy.

June 4, 2014 4:57 am

The posted Ontario hydro rates which doubled between 2002 and 2014 only tells half the story. On top of the BLENDED RATE there are other charges like DELIVERY, REGULATORY CHARGES, DEBT RETIREMENT and HST which almost double blended rate . I am currently paying a blended rate of 9.2 cents/kwh plus 7.2 cents per/kwh of other charges , bringing my total bill to 17.1 cents per kwh. We have been told that this rate will go up 33% soon . Some analysts predict the rate will double again during the coming decade bringing our rate comparable to the 40 cents per kwh in Germany . All this is being done to fight a non existing global warming threat and now some fools now want to add a carbon tax on top of this.

Leo Geiger
June 4, 2014 5:04 am

Steve from Rockwood says: “a revenue neutral tax”. I’d like to see just one example.
British Columbia.
Although it hasn’t been completely revenue neutral since the income tax cuts have slightly exceeded the revenue from the carbon tax, resulting in a net tax reduction in British Columbia for this particular policy. British Columbia has the lowest income tax rates in Canada as of 2012, partly as a result of the revenue neutrality of the carbon tax.

June 4, 2014 5:20 am

There is a typo error in my previous post . The total of OTHER CHARGES is 7.9cents/kwh and not 7.2 cents/kwh.

M Simon
June 4, 2014 5:26 am

A revenue neutral tax:
Stealing from an unfavored group to give to a favored group. So totally neutral. Assuming there is no transaction cost.

June 4, 2014 6:24 am

I mentioned earlier that overzealous and financially irresponsible environmentalists combined forces with” tax and spend” liberal government to trash the economy of a previously prosperous province. The best example of this is the planned shutdown of a quite recently built 4000 MW coal fired power plant at Nanticoke, Ontario. Commissioned between 1973-1978 at a cost of $ 800 million, this plant today would cost 4 to 5 times more. The plant spent an additional amount of about $ 900 million for energy efficiencies, robustness and to improve its emissions. So we have here relatively new public assets worth today in replacement value of at least $5 billion dollars being shut down requiring the most expensive renewable energy replacement via nuclear, solar and wind turbine route whose levellized cost plus all the high subsidies is several times higher than coal . Yet new coal plants are being built all over the world in Europe and Asia. Germany is converting to coal from nuclear and building 23 new coal fired plants. United States will have most of its 600 coal fired plants still in place even after Obamas 30% reduction in emissions. China and India are adding coal fired power plants . This mistake has cost Ontario dearly and the tragedy of all this is that this plant was shut down to fight global warming but global warming has turned out to be a non-existing threat for 17 years now. What a waste of public money and assets due bad public environmental policy based prematurely on an unproven and flawed global warming science. Yet I see US embarking on the same route and about to make the same mistakes.

June 4, 2014 9:30 am

I don’t know how other people are getting such low Ontario electricity rates. My bill April 24 to May 24-usage 254 kWh, cost was 77.26 which works out to .304 per kWh,

June 4, 2014 11:49 am

Ontario electricity rates are the third highest in Canada and for 1000 kWh hours, the average monthly bill is $141.69. In the two neighbouring provinces,in Quebec it is $ 68.66 and in Manitoba it is $78.92 about one half of Ontario’s cost . Clearly provinces with low power bills, the electricity is generated to a large part via water hydro power plants . Ontario had an opportunity to buy into these water generated power schemes as they were being planned but foolishly chose to go the nuclear, fossil and renewables route, doubling their cost.

June 4, 2014 3:27 pm

According to the 2008 Canadian National Energy Board, Canada plans to reduce the generation of electricity by coal from 16, 272 MW to 10,002 MW by 2030 , a reduction of 38% . Almost all ( or 6000 MW) of this reduction is coming from Ontario. So Ontario is carrying most of the burden and cost for Canada to reduce the usage of coal to generate power.This writer feels that this burden on Ontario is too great resulting in electricity costs that are the third highest in Canada and double the rate of the adjacent provinces.. Other provinces are getting a free ride basically if their coal generated power level is remaining unchanged as the report shows. The blind shutting down of perfectly sound coal plants to meet some smoke and mirror environmental or global warming threat which does not exist was wrong and wasteful for Canada but especially for Ontario’s. taxpayers

June 4, 2014 3:55 pm

herkimer, Ontario started with hydro electric power. That is why our electricity company was called Ontario Hydro. If you would look on the sygration data that Crispin in Waterloo and Carmichael posted, you would see that about 40% of our electricity comes from hydro electic power. http://www.sygration.com/gendata/today.html
If this still points to yesterdays data, you will see Beck 2, the biggest hydro electric plant in Niagara falls, being throttled as were some nuclear and some oil and even some wind farms. All this while idling an old oil/gas plant and a closed coal plant. I just checked, not yesterdays data; it is today’s and the difference is that today there is no wind. Manitoba has rivers and falls but none as big as Niagara Falls. Quebec buys cheap energy from Newfoundland’s Churchill Falls project, built with federal money and somehow given to Quebec for a song in our traditional “give everything to Quebec” federal politics.
Ontario did not have high electricity prices unil the Liberals came out with their green energy scheme.

June 5, 2014 4:51 am

Thanks for the reference I am aware of the energy mix in Ontario. I was comparing the coal picture more in order relate to the current US situation where they seem to be following the same pattern as Ontario.

June 8, 2014 12:24 pm

Leo Geiger, from SP, The carbon tax has contributed to a 15 per cent drop in British Columbians’ use of petroleum-based fuels since it was introduced in 2008, said an Ottawa-based think tank, Sustainable Prosperity, in a report issued Wednesday.

June 13, 2014 12:27 am

Dr. Ball with the Ontario Liberals getting a majority will you do an update?

%d bloggers like this: