Comment
A dangerous mind
It is hard to know what will slow down Dalton’s McGuinty’s green energy ambitions. Zealots don’t typically let facts or public opinion get in their way. It likely won’t be the scathing report by the province’s Auditor General released this week. In it the AG finds McGuinty’s green energy strategies to be ill-considered, needlessly expensive and likely a killer of jobs in the province.
The AG could not have been more blunt. Ontario’s green energy strategies are making a small group of developers wealthy and the rest of us poorer. The 50,000 jobs “created” are mostly temporary construction jobs, according to the AG. Worse, the province has not even bothered to calculate the jobs that will be lost due to its renewable energy policies.
In Spain it is estimated that for every renewable energy job created, 2.2 jobs will disappear. In the UK studies show that 3.7 jobs will evaporate for every job created in renewable energy. In Ontario no such study has been done. Nor one sought.
Neither has much work been done in assessing deals that fork over billions of dollars on 20-year contracts—producing intermittent electricity in a way we can’t use and don’t need. The Auditor General found the FIT (feed-in tariff) program alone will add $220 million a year to hydro bills. Needlessly. The province has several other flavours of rich locked-in contracts with very happy developers—adding millions more to our bills each year.
McGuinty’s $7 billion deal with Samsung was cobbled together with “no formal economic analysis” according to the Auditor General. The government didn’t even bother to speak with its own agencies, the Ontario Energy Board or the Ontario Power Authority, before jumping into bed with the Korean conglomerate.
“We expected but did not find that a comprehensive and detailed economic analysis or business case had been prepared,” wrote Auditor General Jim McCarter in his report.
Like every other aspect of McGuinty’s green ambitions—nothing was going to get in his way so there was no need to consult. They would just muddy a clear mind that was already made up.
This is a dangerous problem. The Green Energy Act was always bad policy—only now someone has peered into the province’s decision making on the file and is clanging a loud warning bell. Yet the machine rolls on.
Last week the Ministry of Environment posted Gilead Power’s Ostrander Point industrial wind project on its environmental registry for public comment. A 60-day clock is now running and will continue to run during the Christmas holidays to hear comments and public input. (There is, I think, something classically Orwellian in McGuinty making his Ministry of Environment carry the file that will likely wreak havoc upon important habitat for thousands of migrating birds and other wildlife, as well as at least two endangered species.)
Many will speak up to defend the natural habitat and preserve the raw Crown land on Prince Edward County’s South Shore from industrial development. But will anyone listen? Nothing in McGuinty’s green energy actions so far suggests that this is anything more than a perfunctory and cynical nod to public process. At the end of 60 days the province will say thank you, promise to consider the input, promptly ignore it and soon thereafter approve the project.
An appeal to the Environmental Review Tribunal (again with the environment, you couldn’t write this script any better) will be heard after that. That should be of little solace to County residents. In its last ERT in Essex Kent, the industrial wind turbines were built as the appeal was being heard. The turbines were up and running before the Tribunal made its decision. Not surprisingly they ruled the province could proceed. It is unclear what would have happened had the appeal succeeded. No one, however, believes the turbines would have come down.
Similarly, the County is bracing for the slow but steady invasion of industrial wind factories upon our shores and pasture. We did our part—tossing out McGuinty’s party from Prince Edward-Hastings— but it wasn’t enough. Our new representative, Todd Smith, has taken the fight to Queen’s Park—pushing to restore decision making over renewable projects to the local community.
On Tuesday Dalton McGuinty said he would listen to Smith’s arguments. But by Thursday he’d heard enough, signalling to his party to defeat Smith’s private member bill before it could move to committee for a fuller hearing.
These are the actions of a dangerous and singleminded individual.
In likely his most important recommendation, the Auditor General urges the province to stop and figure out how much its green energy strategies have cost Ontario taxpayers and determine if the benefit is worth the expense.
We should demand no less.
rick@wellingtontimes.ca
.
Yes the government held consultations to determine setbacks -and they were not part of the GEA, but were held after, partly so they could do what they wanted without having to spell it out to everyone first. Acoustical Engineers, Doctors. victims and more told the panel about health problems relating to low frequency noise, infra sound, flicker and more and yet the decision made, included none of that evidence.
The consultations and tribunals are like the consultation process held by the wind industry, a complete sham. Gilead held “open houses” there was no consultation, if you asked a question, they wrote it down and someone would get back to you – no one ever did answer my questions.
They even hired security guards to intimidate the attendees.
It allowed then to fulfill their requirements which in the GEA say nothing about responding to or trying to address any of the concerns, just that they hear them. So that is what they came and did. Because consultations were held, means nothing if the information has not been acted upon.
Similar are the oft quoted “peer reviewed” articles that show no correlation of health problems to IWTs. Again, if you only choose to include studies published that support your position, and ignore those that don’t you can “prove” anything. The studies that show there are known health problems exist, they are becoming more numerous, books have been published, symposiums held, new studies are being conducted around the world. Generally the wind industry uses the “peer reviewed” study, not an actual scientific study. Anyone can do a review of the reviews every 5 years and come to the same conclusion over and over again since they purposely do not include they studies that actually show there are negative health effects. Then every few years they go back and review those same “peer reviews” again, presenting their findings as if they are valid science
@John Legate
You state, “The government had wide spread consultation before coming up with standards set in the Green Energy Act. To say otherwise is incorrect.” This statement is simply a contrived notion with no merit. Sitting at this “environmental tribunal” (tribunal being an interesting term to use since it normally means “constituted under law” or Government edict, which they were not) were representatives (directors) from 7 ENGO’s, all of whom were stakeholders and would reap benefits from this Act’s implementation. I know of at least one that has already received funding through the Trillium Foundation directly associated with their activities in relation to this Act. And your notions regarding Ostrander may need to be revised… perhaps there is the chance of a settlement in the offing which would allow Gilead to retreat from Ostrander without a financial wound, and McGuinty could dress his wound with the Senate approved Moratorium bandage they recently provided… watch for this one soon, just sayin.
A dangerous mind indeed. I find serious problems with Conroy’s version of reality. First are the job loss studies he references. He didn’t happen to mention the assumptions they made. Here they are: there are no oil spills, fossil fuel prices will remain at their current levels forever, climate change does not exist, the private sector is a better investor than the government Is it any wonder then that a Spanish Libertarian funded by Exxon would reach the conclusions he reached
. Recent history reveals the fallicy of of those assumptions. Oil spills were again headline news in 2010 as they have been for much of my life. As to climate change we need only look to a study by former skeptic Dr. Richard Muller (U. California Berkley). He was funded by the oil billionaires the Koch brothers (also Tea Party funders). He had to admit after reviewing the data climate change is real. Oil prices ? They are up 65% in the last five years. Government investment? The 2008 crash was triggered by private sector investing in sub-prime mortgages. That debacle now is estimated to have cost the US 7.7 trillion (1/2 their GDP) to save the banking system and untold losses in production and personal wealth. No modern democratic government has ever screwed up so bad as the US investment sector. When you make unreasonable assumptions you can get any result you want and that is what the Spanish and British researchers did.
Conroy goes on to talk about McGuinty as someone not given to listening to the public opinion. What it sounds more like to me is he doesn’t like McGuinty not agreeing with his opinion. The government had wide spread consultation before coming up with standards set in the Green Energy Act. To say otherwise is incorrect. It is one of the reasons setbacks was doubled and tripled and in some cases more. I find it disturbing Conroy would question the independence of an environmental tribunal. What he should be stating is the government has put in place a consultive process. Virtually every argument we are likely to hear has been heard before by either a court or a tribunal. Therefore Ostrander Point will have to come up with new arguments if any challenge is to be successful. Since Conroy has presented nothing new in that regard I have to agree with him – oatrander Point will move forward.