The mandate of any politically elected government is to serve and protect all the people in their jurisdiction. One of the key requirements is wise use and investment of the funds, so financial competence is necessary for good stewardship. With this in mind, I thought I would look for 12 of the most costly financial decisions/mistakes over the last 10 years. Since the Ontario Provincial Liberals have been the only party in power in the last 10 years, they can be held accountable for the outcome of these decisions.
#1 Provincial Debt – Ministry of Finance – $143.35 billion increase since 2003
The projected budget for Ontario for 2014-15 is $127.6 billion in expenses with $117 billion in revenue so with deficit financing the government will add $10.6 billion to the Ontario provincial debt. This is in addition to the existing $276 billion provincial deficit, approximately $20,500 per person.
Ontario’s net debt – the difference between total liabilities and total financial assets – has more than doubled under the Liberal leadership. In 2002 -2003 the net debt was $132.65 billion but has increased to $276 billion by 2014, so the Liberal government has added $143.35 billion to the provincial debt
The negative consequences of a large debt load include debt-servicing costs which divert funding away from other government programs; a greater vulnerability to any interest-rate increases; and a potential credit-rating downgrade which could make it more expensive to borrow. Our children and grandchildren will pay more taxes and have fewer options because of this increasing debt load.
#2. Feed in Tariff (FIT) subsidy paid to multinational industrial wind energy corporations – Ministry of Energy – $1.6 billion per year for FIT contracts for wind energy plus $2 billion per year for discounted surplus hydro, so over the 20 year contracts $72 billion
This list below was created by a New Yorker to help a community based NY citizens group fight a Lake Ontario near shore industrial wind turbine project proposed for in Niagara and Orleans counties, New York.
But it can assist most citizen groups across America, Canada, Mexico, and Central America to protect their communities which are under siege from huge IWT projects.
Mary Kay Barton: put together the bullet-point summary on wind (below) for people whowanted a quick list of the facts. Most of the bullet points contain links to references for those who are so inclined to do further research.
I put together the bullet-point summary on wind (below) for people who wanted a quick list of the facts. Most of the bullet points contain links to references for those who are so inclined to do further research.
A groundbreaking study has revealed the correlation between infrasound produced by wind turbines and people’s health problems. World renown acoustical engineer Steven Cooper was retained by the operator of the Cape Bridgewater wind project in Victoria, Australia to do a sound study. He is responsible for getting better noise regulations at airports world wide. Victoria is the state that instituted a 2 km setback for wind turbines from homes after seeing the devastating effects on people’s lives (Amendment VC82).
It is proven science that infrasound can cause serious harm to the body. The French scientist Vladimir Gavreau and his staff were plagued with nausea and gruelling headaches in the building they were working in. Investigators came in to check out the problem, and they fell sick. One day Gavreau noticed a rippling effect in his coffee that came and went. When they left the building, the symptoms disappeared. Finally, engineers found an improperly installed fan motor was generating an inaudible 7 Hz sound through the ventilation system. Realizing how effective it was, they tried making a weapon out of it. There were accidents causing symptoms that lasted for days.
In a study entitled Sick Building Syndrome: Acoustic Aspects published in Indoor and Built Environment, Burt Tyrrell of the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology found the same 7 Hz frequency present in an office building. Headaches, nausea, fatigue, dizziness, to name a few, were symptoms of the office workers Continue reading Infrasound is the Root of Wind Turbine Health Problems→
It’s a big ask, but members of the West Lincoln Glanbrook Wind Action Group Inc. and Mothers Against Wind Turbines Inc. are optimistic.
The anti-turbine groups were among a number of clubs, organizations and charities that applied for funding through the township’s corporate sponsorship fund. The fund doles out money to non-profit groups that serve West Lincoln.
In a presentation to council Mike Jankowski and Bonnie Tuson outlined costs that the groups expect to face in 2015, including $30,000 for each group as part of a challenge launched under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, $50,000 as part of the Niagara Region Wind Corporation’s judicial review, and $20,000 for community outreach and support.
“We are asking for financial support to benefit the efforts of and for the communities of West Lincoln to protect the health and security of all,” they said in their presentation.
The township has budgeted $12,500 for corporate sponsorships in 2015. Last year groups such as the PoultryFest committee ($5,000), Big Brothers Big Sisters ($1,000) and West Niagara Agricultural Society ($1,750) received grants from the township. Continue reading Turbine groups seek township money→
We would like to provide the supporters of the Charter Challenge with an update on the case.
As you know, the Divisional Court Charter Challenge appeal (heard this past November in London) was to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Environmental Protection Act which was amended by the Green Energy and Economy Act. In Goderich, in March of 2013, Justice Grace of the Superior Court ruled that Charter and constitutional challenges of the province’s wind turbine approval process should be heard at the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) level. In his Decision he also stated the following: “I am acutely aware that some may conclude that this ruling forecloses judicial involvement in the dispute. With respect, it does not do so. The statutory process is in its early stages. A right to appeal to Divisional Court on a question of law is expressly given”.
As directed, the ERT process was followed. The ERT took the position that it lacked the jurisdiction to rule on whether or not the Ministry of the Environment Director’s decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) met the constitutional requirements of section 7 of the Charter. Continue reading SWEAR Charter Challenge update letter→
Paul D. Schomer, Ph.D., P.E.; Schomer and Associates, Inc.;
Standards Director, Acoustical Society of America George Hessler,
Hessler Associates, Inc. 20 February 2015
On 10 February 2 015 George Hessler and I warned that rather than making patently groundless arguments, something like an “expert statistical analysis” could be expected “proving” this was not a “valid sample” of the public at large, or proving the study did not do something else it was never intended to do. Now we see the assertion that this was a “medical study” and that Steven Cooper, George and I are not qualified to make medical judgements. And of course we are not medical researchers, but it is the predicate that is wrong. This is not a medical study, and these are not medical conclusions. As predicted, this study is being made to be something that is not.
To explain this we offer the following analogy. Part of the condition of being a human is we get gas. And certainly many if not most have observed the cause-and-effect relation between eating beans and a certain aromatic condition. We ask each reader to reflect on this. Does it take a medical researcher to tell you that eating beans causes gas in some people? Certainly not. The medical research may say why or how the gas is produced in the body. But anyone can make the simple observation of the relation between eating beans and the aromatic condition, cause-and-effect, literally the input to and the output from the system.
A little while back, a Scottish pen-smith posed a little rhetorical on the subtle art of skulduggery:
Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
There have been few industries that have had more practice, and as much success, in that subtle art, as the wind industry.
STT has popped up 880 posts in the, just over, two years since we cranked into gear – on our mission to destroy the wind industry.
A fair slice of them have concerned the topic of the adverse health effects caused by turbine generated incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound; the woefully inadequate, indeed, utterly irrelevant noise standards written by the wind industry; and the institutional corruption that:
a) allowed those standards to become the “benchmarks” in the first place; and
b) witnesses public authorities, with a responsibility to protect public health, not only sitting on their hands, but…
Kevin Dooley: wind turbine infrasound the culprit.
The impact of low-frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines on neighbours has been known by the wind industry since NASA turned a massive, multidisciplinary microscope on the problem back in the 1980s (see our posts here and here and here).
Mind you, that highly relevant research has been steadfastly ignored by Australia’s peak public health body, the NHMRC for very political reasons (see our posts here and here).
Trying to explain turbine generated infrasound (large changes in air pressure that, by definition, can’t be heard, but are sensed via the inner ear; or other parts of the nervous system) to those who have never experienced its effects is like trying to explain a migraine to someone who has never had a headache.
Top Neuro-Physiologist, Professor Alec Salt gives a pretty clear wrap-up for the uninitiated in this video: