Kathleen Wynne backing away from McGuinty’s Ontario Green Energy Act

wynneScott Stinson, National Post
It’s always instructive to see how a government frames an announcement that is backtracking on one of its own initiatives. Conveniently for the Ontario Liberals, they are amassing considerable experience in this regard.

So, when the government on Thursday dropped the news that it was restructuring its 2010 wind-power deal with Samsung, it presented it in terms of extended job commitments and savings to electricity ratepayers. Samsung was guaranteeing jobs until 2016, instead of 2015, and the government was now only committing to buy $6-billion of Samsung’s renewable power at well above market rates, down from $9.7-billion in the original contract. Hooray for savings!

Those extended job commitments, though, are a result of Samsung’s having missed targets in the original contract; it now has more time to meet them. And that reduction in spending? It comes as Samsung, which won the original contract absent a competition, agrees to drop its own investment in the province from $7-billion to $5-billion, with projects expected to generate 1,369 megawatts of energy, down steeply from 2,500 megawatts in the first deal. Read article

13 thoughts on “Kathleen Wynne backing away from McGuinty’s Ontario Green Energy Act

  1. Maybe she’s just picking up speed till she can turn and run full tilt..

    A couple of pithy quotes.

    In 1962, historian of science Thomas S. Kuhn shocked the academic world with his book The Structures of Scientific Revolution. He asserted that scientific communities are closed minded and promote convergent thinking as a function of dogma in scientific work. The jolt is that science is popularly thought of as promoting divergent thinking and open-minded inquiry. Kuhn concedes that in the beginning when questions are first arising around a subject this is the case, but once a field rounds up its foundational questions, it forms a set of assumptions that become the dogmatic underpinnings of that community. Kuhn explains that “a scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of espoused beliefs.”

    What begins as a discovery in science, or even a scientific conjecture, is soon taken as a model or metaphor of some larger realm of human concern. In time, at the urging of the leaders of public opinion, the metaphor becomes installed as the reality and the seasonless convictions of the ordinary person are thus put on official notice! Only years later, under reality’s sobering lights, does it once again become clear that our ageless dilemmas have survived these once “new truths”; that the vexing problems of value have not surrendered to the thick and thickening book of fact; that the most recent revolutions of perspective have done little more than move us around the circle whose center is the human condition.

    Maybe even the Liberals are waking up to the reality of Junque Science as perpetrated by our previous science, energy and environmental clowns — er… I mean Ministers..

    • Perhaps an example of this is the herd mentality that IWTs don’t bother peole if they have an ownership in or a say in where they are placed. One researcher copies off the work of another researcher and then they have conferences where they agree with one another.

      • I think you have grasped the essential point quite well! 😉

        The article agrees with my prejudices about many researchers and investigators.

        If you don’t cite other papers — they won’t cite yours.

  2. Damn…wouldn’t that be a miracle!!! What will happen to all of the millions of dollars that have been invested by Liberal politicians and their cronies?….not that I really give a hoot!

  3. Wynne and Chiarelli are backing down from nothing. The strategy remains as always, with Horwath’s connivance get as many mega project approved as possible, before the regime is defeated. That will make if much harder for Hudak, or whoever to cancel construction.
    If they were truly serious, Wynne could simply announce that the units of wind generation were met and Ont needed no additional construction. A simple press release emphasizing the proportion of electricity generated from “green” sources hydro and nuclear would do the trick.
    This is what McGuinty should have done years ago, declare nuclear a clean, green energy source.

    • Martin:

      You really should look at the article I linked above — read it carefully and think about it.

      I don’t disagree with you — but think about what his advisers were telling him. Look at links I left elsewhere and consider that Dr Gordon McBean was on that board — for example:


      Dr. Gordon McBean is Professor in the departments of Geography and Political Science, and Director of Policy Studies at the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, at The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. He is also Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. Dr. McBean has received the Patterson Medal for distinguish contributions to meteorology by a Canadian and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and the American Meteorological Society. He has been both a lead author and review editor for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and received a share of the Nobel Peace prize for his recent work.

      What were all those fine activists telling him — and now Premier (designate but non-elected) Kathleen Wynne?

      From Wiki…
      Dr. Gordon McBean is a Canadian climatologist who serves as chairman of the board of trustees of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. He is a professor at the University of Western Ontario and Chair for Policy in the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Previously he was the Assistant Deputy Minister of Meteorological Service of Canada.

      In 1995, McBean gave a speech to the World Meteorological Organization on global warming.

      In 2006, McBean, with Dr. Andrew Weaver and Ken Denman, authored an open letter, signed by 90 climate scientists, to Prime Minister Stephen Harper calling for an effective national climate change strategy. Newswire press release The letter (PDF) Univ. of Western Ontario page Globe and Mail article

      The letter was a response to an earlier open letter to Harper from 60 scientists (19 Canadian) arguing against the Kyoto accord and questioning its scientific basis: National Post April 6, 2006, retrieved April 20, 2007.

      So how fast do scientists change their mind about accepted dogma?

      • IWTs have nothing to do with climate change. They can’t cool down the climate and they can’t warm up the climate. Demand the proof that this is so.
        But they are a phony issue used to promote the use of IWTs
        This point should be made very clear to proponents of IWTs.
        There are academics who use this issue to get funding for various projects related to renewable energy which they would not otherwise receive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *