Ontarians are paying for the green energy agendas created by Maurice Strong as former head of Ontario Hydro. David Suzuki and Dalton McGuinty push to continue Strong’s disastrous policies, which guarantees shortages and higher costs, even if McGuinty is defeated. It will take years to rebuild adequate facilities. Strong and Suzuki found willing politicians who refused to understand. It’s willful because of the clear evidence of false science and failure of similar policies in any place that pursued green energy.
Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart said,
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral benefits…Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Sadly, Strong, Suzuki and Peter Kent, Canada’s current Environment Minister, ignore the phony science and accept the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Strong must because he created it. Suzuki and Kent because they don’t understand climate science. Suzuki said politicians who ignore climate science should be jailed. That’s outrageous. People who mislead politicians and politicians who refuse to hold open debates are the problem.
Strong began Ontario Hydro’s problems when appointed Chairman by NDP Premier Bob Rae in 1992. 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.”
“The fox has been given the assignment, and all the tools necessary, to repair the henhouse to his liking.”
This applies to his UN role, but also applies to his Ontario Hydro role.
One report 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.”
Sounded good, but it was a path to inadequate supply.
Key is the phrase he, “pushed for sustainable development”. In the same year, 1992, Strong, in the keynote speech at the Rio Earth Summit he organized, 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, including Ontario. It’s summarized in his speculation for the plot of a novel.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
How do you cause civilizations to collapse? Why is CO2 the focus? It’s less than 4 percent of the greenhouse gases and ALL records show temperature increases before CO2, opposite to the fundamental assumption of the IPCC hypothesis. Strong did it through the IPCC using the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Fossil fuels drive the industrial economies and CO2 is a byproduct. Show it’s causing irreparable climate damage and you can demand alternative energy replacements. Strong achieved this with the IPCC and at Ontario Hydro. He used the narrow definition of climate change created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as only human caused changes. Trouble is this is impossible if you don’t know the amount and cause of natural change.
IPCC created the science to prove human CO2 was the problem and the politics to claim failure to act guarantees catastrophe. Strong controlled who participated through the bureacracies of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). An Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada (EC), who subsequently controlled most Cabadian climate research funding, chaired the IPCC formation meeting in 1985. As Richard Lindzen explained,
“IPCC’s emphasis, however, isn’t on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives from over 100 countries”.
Using Weather Departments gave bureaucrats ascendancy over politicians, as Peter Kent proves.
The IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was designed to deceive. It differs greatly from the Science Report and is deliberately released months eearlier. David Wojick, IPCC expert reviewer explained,
“What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.”
Focus on CO2 and the assumption an increase causes temeprature 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 earth’s 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”.
Peter Kent should listen. Suzuki and McGuinty apparently don’t want to listen.
CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. There is no scientific need to replace fossil fuels. Replacing them with alternative energies compounds the 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 solar’s “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.
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. To put this in perspective Ontario closed two 1000MW plants in 2011 – the Lambton and the Nanticoke coal fired plants. Besides the land, you still need coal-fired plants running at almost 100 percent for back up.
Promoting energy policies based on falsified science and alternative energies that don’t work is unacceptable. When they’ve been tried and already failed as in Ontario, it is incredible anyone would continue to promote them. The people will pay the price as they have already.
No related articles.