Challenging the GEA

Professional Engineers of Ontario Magazine: Engineering Dimensions

I was interested in the OCEPP conference panel discussion on the Green Energy Act and more specifically the impacts on communities. But  I am not interested in the ‘love in’ that seemed to have been arranged.

That panel would not, in my opinion, openly challenge the policy and public interest problems that have become apparent with the out of balance electricity pricing, closed door policy for site release and system development, loss of municipal control of development and planning, loss of public input, and loss of the public’s property rights and enjoyment of property rights.

The OCEPP appear to  have only involved those who set and implemented the existing policy, or those who benefit from it. In fact the panel Chair is from CanWEA, an industry lobby group!

What about involving those who have challenged the Green Energy Act, and its impacts on the public and private person?

What about the significant and real concerns of people and communities?

What about the significant impacts on developmenty and environmental assessment policy?

What about  an engineers duty to the public?

If you do not challenge and address the significant concerns with the renewable energy development in Ontario – including the significant concerns over the GEA and impacts on the public then you run the risk of irrelevance.

An irrelevant OCEPP will  not sustain itself – and in my opinion, does not deserves sustenance from the public or engineers.

Karl Piirik, M.Eng., P.Eng.
Thunder Bay, Ontario

12 thoughts on “Challenging the GEA

  1. More and more people are challenging the Green Energy Act (GEA) and the research that lies behind it .

    You all know that one of the claims is that we need Green Energy because, among other things, the Polar Bears are drowning and dying…

    Here is a transcript of the investigation of Charles Monnet — the fellow who popularized the idea that Polar Bears are dying.

    It’s impossible not to be embarrassed for the fellow as he fumbles his way through grade school arithmetic — trying to convince investigators that it is beyond their understanding.

    This is how we got the GEA — the letter writer is correct — time to investigate the very basis of the science and the integrity of the people who perpetrated this dishonest science upon us.

    CHARLES MONNETT: And, um, so by limiting it to the transect bears, then, you know, we could do that ratio estimator and say three is to, um, uh, “x” as, uh, 11 is to 100. I mean, it‟s that kind of thing. You, you‟ve, you‟re nodding like you understand.

    What can I say…

    • OK Earnest, I`ll give it a brief shot. (re;Liberals must push PCs on their agenda)
      -“Spreading gas tax rebates, to all municipalities,as opposed to only those with public transit.”
      First,it is the only fair & democatic option, because the tax was paid by all purchasers, not only those in areas with public transit. Unlike Liberals, Conservatives value fairness & democracy.So they have no choice in this matter really. No cost involved, just fairness. In fact, rural residents must drive almost everywhere they go, and I`d bet, on average, spend far more on fuel, than urban residents, who have transit systems. Therefore they pay most of the tax involved, per capita, so it`s totally unfair to exclude them in the program.
      -“he`ll absorb Ont. Hydros`debt retirement charge into the general budget.”
      What debt retirement charge would that be? The one that was paid off already? It`s another Liberal Scam! It no longer exists! The lying Liberals may owe a bunch of doe, in it`s memory,but the debt is/was paid, I forget the exact date, so I won`t guess, but I do know it`s paid.
      So once again, Hudac has no real choice as an honest premier. Now there are two words we haven`t seen used together in Ontario, for, oh,about 8 yrs (honest premier! ).
      -“10% corporate tax cuts,removing GST on electricity & heating.”
      Reducing corporate tax rates & making electricity & heating more affordable, will spur economic growth & activity,create jobs, put/leave more money in peoples pocket to purchase things they require, bringing more, not less, money into gov. coffers.
      McGuintys`tax increases,electricity and heating costs,are what destroyed many Ontario businesses, so Hudac must put it in reverse, if you will.
      Liberals say, “Hudacs platform has a 14 billion$ hole”.
      As I`ve said many times since the last prov.election,’It matters not what McGuinty et al say,esp. before an election, history tells us it`s almost 100% certainly a lie.That is the sad ,pathetic truth! Plus their record also shows, they know absolutely nothing about government finances.
      “The combination of more spending in some areas & lower revenue from taxes must be challenged!”
      See above; Lower corporate taxes will mean higher gov. revenue. as it stimulates the economy on our way back to ‘have’ status.Mike Harris proved this, even as Chretien/Martin slashed provincial transfers mercilessly,while blaming it all, very successfully, unfortunately for Ontarions, on the premiers, especially Harris who they hated (for being able to take credit for cutting taxes).
      By eliminating the Liberals planned 87 billion$$ renewable energy expenditures, and god only knows how much other corrupt/criminal expenditures,Timmy H. will easily fill that Lib.alleged ‘hole’.
      Oct. 6/11 please hurry,wish it was tomorrow!

      • I was hoping you would counter in this newspaper.

    • If the Ontario economy continues to tank due to very high energy costs then there won’t be much in the way of tax monies to spend on health care and education. Sources of tax money will dry up more and more as the economy continues to sink.

  2. The technical, scientific and engineering associations are a good battle ground to choose when asking the question the letter writer asked, essentially: “Why are you only presenting one side of the argument?”.

    Many people say there is only one side, the science is settled and the time for action is now. So we need wind turbines, we need solar cells. How else will we save the planet?

    Interestingly, research out of NASA — a staunch supporter of the “The Green Machine” shows something a little different…

    There is a new paper published which raises further questions on the robustness of multi-decadal global climate predictions. It is…

    There is a link to the original paper…

    But let me summarize for the “un-scientific” among us….

    The predictions for climate that we made were cr@p, they are cr@p and it looks like — with current technology, that the will be cr@p for some time to come. What our current satellite data shows is that the models were wrong — they predicting that the earth was heating up — and it isn’t.

    So where is the need for IWT’s, destruction of birds farms and animal habitat? Why are we sleep depriving humans when there is no apparent need for the technology of IWTs and Solar Cells. Furthermore there is no hope that they will provide anything useful now or in the future!

    Why? Why? Why?

    If you are a member of a professional organization don’t stand for this misuse of science and technology. Speak up calmly and forcefully — as did the letter writer. The ammo is out there!

      • Re; “I was hoping you`d counter in this newspaper” your response to my response,above.
        I should have known that Earnest! May I use the excuse I was tired, not thinking or perhaps just test driving it here?
        I`ve submitted it, with a bit of fine tuning, to the, news people, so we`ll see if they print it.

  3. There would be no Nonprofit Eco industry , no thousands of scientists wasting time flying round the world with jobs you pay for.

    No Mars..that you pay for…no regulatory industry you pay for….why why why?

    You cannot have a sustainable world by expanding the economy or without population control…the very fact that McGuinty promotes immigration..proves everything he stands for regarding the environment is not true.
    How do you conserve expanding?…………..why why why LOL!
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ yours

    • Ernest:

      Next time I pass through Meaford I will buy you lunch. 😉

      I want to see the area one last time without all the f%^$@@##! wind turbines polluting the landscape.

      ..After that one last pleasant view, I will vacation elsewhere — thank you.

Comments are closed.