Ontario residents, bend over for "green charges"

[Cranky]

For the last month or so, I have been fighting the electricity supplier over my factory electricity bills.

I have news for you guys. In one of the conversation with a higher up, he let it slip that if I am unhappy now, wait until 2008-2009. They intend to subsidize moronic green projects like wind farms and solar panels on the backs of the consumer. To quote him directly "if consumers want green, they will get as much green as we can charge them and make a handsome profit doing it". I was speechless, never mind fustrated.

So for any of you who think that this "green movement" has no consequences, think again. With abslotely NO definitive proof that humans are causing global warming (remember the sun? remember earth cycles? ), we are embarking on a ridicilous course and increadable expense for nothing more then politics and special interests.

Governments of every level are going to blow your money like you have never seen for "feel good" projects and companies are going to rip you another one in "green surcharges". You heard it here first and you better get off your asses if you want to fight for sanity....or else bend over.

[Skilly]

No news there HA .... my father-in-law is a VP with an electrical utility here in Newfoundland and I get the skinny on his arguments every time he goes to the Public Utilities Board for a rate increase. He and I have some good debates on how the consumer gets screwed ... and it is all because Hydro (at least here in Newfoundland) is not allowed to operate at a loss. So every time a hydro project is built, we think we are saving because of the new energy online, but thats not the case because the consumer has to pay for the construction costs and any loans used to build it. It is a viscous consumer gouging circle.

[franko]

In Ontario, we were told that we needed to pay the going rate and subsidies were cancelled.

Then the political fallout began and subsidies were put back in place even though we were told we couldn't afford them . . . but that our plants were obsolete and needed to be replaced, and we needed to pay for the upgrades and upkeep (and the millions to buy-out the chairpeople of Ontario Hydro and replace them with other designated soon-to-be millionaires).

Then we were told that we needed SMART meters to keep track of our power usage so that we could be charged more for using power during peak hours.

Then we were charged for the SMART meters.

Then . . . well, I'm waiting. Mr. McGuinty will come up with something, I'm sure.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Anybody here know how to build igloos and mud huts? Just want to hedge my bets.

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

global warming

Have people forgotten that global warming isn't the only threat to the environment? We ARE causing pollution that is already causing us serious problems and will only get worse. As for global warming, if we can't stop it, then it doesn't much matter if we "waste" money on green projects, because our way of life will be radically altered one way or another.

[franko]

machabby said:

habsaddict said:

global warming

Have people forgotten that global warming isn't the only threat to the environment? We ARE causing pollution that is already causing us serious problems and will only get worse. As for global warming, if we can't stop it, then it doesn't much matter if we "waste" money on green projects, because our way of life will be radically altered one way or another.

You've hit it. Global warming isn't the be-all and end-all nor is climate change . . . but it is the buzzword-du-jour. Panic the people, confuse the people, keep your issue on the front pages, and keep collecting the suckers' donations.

Kyoto has little to do with fixing hte problem but with redistributing wealth to other world areas. Buying credits will do absolutely nothing to help fix the problem. We will send 20 billion dollars over the next 4 years to India and China -- places excused from any cleanup even though they are just as guilty of spewing junk into the atmosphere as we are -- to buy credits, and will still have to come up with some sort of plan to begin our cleanup.

And as has been said many times, if every North American quit driving cars and if our manufactuing plants shut down it would barely put a dent in the emissions problem. Our standard of life will drop to that of a third world nation, and the problem would still be there.

We need to do something. But we do need a made-at-home solution. It was stupid for our "leaders" to sign the Kyoto Accord. Worse, the Liberal government signed it and then did absolutely nothing for years, and now wants us to think of them as our only possible saviour.

I say . . . bah!

[MC Habber]

Kyoto was more symbolic than anything else, but the symbolism was at least a start. I think it was important to have international official recognition of the problem.

[franko]

machabby said:

Kyoto was more symbolic than anything else, but the symbolism was at least a start. I think it was important to have international official recognition of the problem.

Disagree wholeheartedly. It's all about Kyoto. If it were symbolic then we wouldn't be hearing about our need to fulfill our commitments. The Liberals hammer away at it as if it were gospel (and it is -- the gospel of global warming -- not the gospel of environmentalism). "We must meet our commitments made" says Mr. Dion, even though they are impossible to meet, and even though the government in power at the signing (his) did less than nothing to meet them. If it were merely symbolic then he would be saying "we must do something" rather than "we must obey".

[MC Habber]

We made minimal commitments which were acheivable at the time. Our failure to meet them is bad for our reputation and bad for international resolve. Had everyone who signed Kyoto actually followed through we might be seeing more meaningful action now.

The environmental crisis is a collective action problem - it is in each individual country's interest to act against the global interest. The only way that countries will act in the global interest is if they have some reason to believe that other countries are doing the same. Hence the need for international agreement.

[franko]

I have no problem with an international agreement in which everyone agrees to work toward the objective. I have serious problems with an agreement that says we won't worry about doing anything about the problem, but what we will do is allow you to give money to another country that either doesn't have the same problem, or is excluded from doing anything about the problem (China).

I also have a problem with an opposition government that is so self-righteous about the environment yet did diddly-squat about the problem when they were in power. If the commitments were so minimal then why did they allow a 30% increase in emissions over their term? And if indeed they were achievable then they should hang their heads in shame for doing nothing.

And I have a serious problem with a 5 billion dollar yearly payment for credits that still leave us in the same position environmentally. Take that 5 billion and use it to improve our manufactuing plants.

[Cranky]

skilly said:

No news there HA .... my father-in-law is a VP with an electrical utility here in Newfoundland and I get the skinny on his arguments every time he goes to the Public Utilities Board for a rate increase. He and I have some good debates on how the consumer gets screwed ... and it is all because Hydro (at least here in Newfoundland) is not allowed to operate at a loss. So every time a hydro project is built, we think we are saving because of the new energy online, but thats not the case because the consumer has to pay for the construction costs and any loans used to build it. It is a viscous consumer gouging circle.

You have no idea how anti-manufacturing our society really is. Do you know that there is three time HIGHER tax rate for manufacturing buildings then commercial buildings. The electrical rates are set up where if you are a a manufacturer, you get screwed over by "peak demand" rates. That means a commercial building can use tens of thousands of kilowatt hours and pay LESS then a manufacturing company that has a peak demand even for 5 minutes and then uses one tenth the amount of kilowatt hours. Why is that? Because they can. You can't find justice or equal treatment because every left wing nut and vote seeking political power monger knows that manufacturing companies are all rich fat cats who screw their "poor little employees" and spew out giga tons of pollution from their butts.

Regardless of my specific problem....

Ontario Liberal government is earmarking 40 billion dollars for nuclear plants but eco-nazis are lining up twetny deep to fight ANY sane method for producing large volumes of electricity. These hard case idiots show up with their stupid looking wool hats (the ones you put on 5 year olds) and protest anything and everything. Of course they do, they were brought up with absolutely NO concept of what it takes to make a living.

I just can't waiit for a serious recession. With all the jobs sucked up by Chinese slave labour, Canadians will re-live bread lines....and I will sitting there applauding all the plant closings. Then we will see how "green" people are when there is no food on the table.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

habsaddict said:

global warming

Have people forgotten that global warming isn't the only threat to the environment? We ARE causing pollution that is already causing us serious problems and will only get worse. As for global warming, if we can't stop it, then it doesn't much matter if we "waste" money on green projects, because our way of life will be radically altered one way or another.

I have absolutely no problem dealing with pollution and toxins. None. I would support those causes without hesitation. What I have a huge problem with is lumping everything under "Global warming" and trying to destroy our lifestyle AND our livings.

We have absolutely NO conclusive proof that global warming is man made. NONE. ZERO. NADA. Where we are with "global warming research" is that we know there is an effect and we know that there are potential consequence, in between, we ignore irrefutable evidence that the earth has gone through thousands of cycles like these and the sun is a thousand times more influential about global temperture then ANYTHING humans can do. Instead, we have hard core, blind eco-nazis who want to stop everything we do in our society. What this reminds me is of the Roman times when they would bleed the "bad blood" out of a sick person, weakening him and killing him more often then not. They had the excuse that they didn't know better. We know better but our politicians are driven by the loudest screamers first and common sense comes a distant second.

[Cranky]

franko said:

I have no problem with an international agreement in which everyone agrees to work toward the objective. I have serious problems with an agreement that says we won't worry about doing anything about the problem, but what we will do is allow you to give money to another country that either doesn't have the same problem, or is excluded from doing anything about the problem (China).

I also have a problem with an opposition government that is so self-righteous about the environment yet did diddly-squat about the problem when they were in power. If the commitments were so minimal then why did they allow a 30% increase in emissions over their term? And if indeed they were achievable then they should hang their heads in shame for doing nothing.

And I have a serious problem with a 5 billion dollar yearly payment for credits that still leave us in the same position environmentally. Take that 5 billion and use it to improve our manufactuing plants.

Oh c'mon Franko, why aren't you drinking the Armageddon CoolAid? Don't you know that you are killing our planet? Your very existence is causing death and destruction to the precious flora and fauna. In fact, imagine how many tons of CO2 you will breath out over your lifetime? If you REALLY want to save the planet, give all your money to China and report to your closest Soylent Green facility.

[franko]

habsaddict said:

Oh c'mon Franko, why aren't you drinking the Armageddon CoolAid?

'Cause there is money to be found made in this environmental panic, ad I'm trying to find a way to my piece of the pie.

Don't you know that you are killing our planet? Your very existence is causing death and destruction to the precious flora and fauna. In fact, imagine how many tons of CO2 you will breath out over your lifetime?

Someone else's problem, my man. Let me enjoy my pitiful existence on this earth and we'll let the grandkids come up with a plan.

Isn't that what's said about us right-wing fundamentalist Christian dingbats? That we don't care about the earth because we're more concerned about the afterlife anyway, so we rape and pillage the planet for our own enjoyment?

Unfortunately for "us, it's the wrong paint and the wrong paintbrush. We religious types feel obligated to look after this world because we believe that there was a Creator behind everything, and we are beholden to keep the place for Him.

The CO2 I breathe out is part and parcel to my existence. The fuel I burn to warm my house in this minus 20^o global warmed temperature is part and parcel to my existence. I take care to use travel mugs rather than takeout containers and try to keep my vehicle in decent repair (that's more from the fact that I'm cheap and want good gas mileage rather than the environment stuff if the truth be known, but it's "part and parcel"). I reduce and reuse and recycle but I'm no activist. And as to the precious flora and fauna, my wife spends enough each spring to make sure that what we destroy is more htan replaced. ;D

If you REALLY want to save the planet, give all your money to China and report to your closest Soylent Green facility.

Actually, to save the planet I'm boycotting China (and Walmart). I'd quit buying "stuff" altogether but I feel responsible to our Canadian manufacturers so I still shop. I'm thinking about redoing my kitchen cabinets . . .

Honestly, if I could I'd move to one of the islands off Greece, where it is warm and they don't need much clothing and they just aren't caught up in the materialistic pleasures lifestyle we insist is necessary in North America.

There is some good in the envirocrap movement, and I am involved. There is some inconsistency as well, and some just awful philosophical garbage. I weed out what I can.

Interestingly enough, our environmental leaders scream loud against a lot, but when it affects their own comfort they are strangely silent.

[Skilly]

Global warming ... bah .... doesn't exist as far as I am concerned.

We have gone through what? 2 or 3 ice ages in the history of the earth. How did that ice melt? The temperature had to be alot hotter or just as hot as it is now to melt the ice caps back then .... it is cyclical. And the most influential thing in the universe with regards to Earth's climate/temperature is the Sun. A degree or two colder we freeze, a degree or two hotter we burn ...... if it is that sensitive then it has to have some causation for the Earth's rising temperatures

[Cranky]

skilly said:

Global warming ... bah .... doesn't exist as far as I am concerned.

We have gone through what? 2 or 3 ice ages in the history of the earth. How did that ice melt? The temperature had to be alot hotter or just as hot as it is now to melt the ice caps back then .... it is cyclical. And the most influential thing in the universe with regards to Earth's climate/temperature is the Sun. A degree or two colder we freeze, a degree or two hotter we burn ...... if it is that sensitive then it has to have some causation for the Earth's rising temperatures

Here is something I found....

~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
~~~~~~~~~~~

Ever since the Pre-Cambrian (600 million years ago), ice ages have occurred at widely spaced intervals of geologic time - approximately 200 million years - lasting for millions, or even tens of millions of years. For the Cenozoic period, which began about 70 million years ago and continues today, evidence derived from marine sediments provide a detailed, and fairly continuous, record for climate change. This record indicates decreasing deep-water temperature, along with the build-up of continental ice sheets. Much of this deep-water cooling occurred in three major steps about 36, 15 and 3 million years ago - the most recent of which continues today. During the present ice age, glaciers have advanced and retreated over 20 times, often blanketing North America with ice. Our climate today is actually a warm interval between these many periods of glaciation. The most recent period of glaciation, which many people think of as the "Ice Age", was at its height approximately 20,000 years ago.

Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere.

This last line is fascinating. We do not know exactly what causes glacial cycles that change the earths temperture by ten degree's but we know for sure that you driving your car is causing global warming. Then again, we can point to carbin dioxide variations but that is also flawed because the ocean can absorb and release magnitudes more CO2 then humanity can possibly make.

But hey, don't try to tell this to the eco-nazis because that will just take the darn shine off their social engineering jack boots.

[Skilly]

I would like to know what cause the holes in the ozone layer ....but I wouldn't be surprised that the Sun has some influence on that as well.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

I would like to know what cause the holes in the ozone layer ....but I wouldn't be surprised that the Sun has some influence on that as well.

The ozone layer can be depleted by free radical catalysts, including nitric oxide (NO), hydroxyl (OH), atomic chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br). While there are natural sources for all of these species, the concentrations of chlorine and bromine have increased markedly in recent years due to the release of large quantities of manmade organohalogen compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and bromofluorocarbons. These highly stable compounds are capable of surviving the rise to the stratosphere, where Cl and Br radicals are liberated by the action of ultraviolet light. Each radical is then free to initiate and catalyze a chain reaction capable of breaking down over 10,000 ozone molecules. Ozone levels, over the northern hemisphere, have been dropping by 4% per decade. Over approximately 5% of the Earth's surface, around the north and south poles, much larger (but seasonal) declines have been seen; these are the ozone holes.

On January 23, 1978, Sweden became the first nation to ban CFC-containing aerosol sprays that are thought to damage the ozone layer. A few other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, followed suit later that year, but the European Community rejected an analogous proposal. Even in the U.S., chlorofluorocarbons continued to be used in other applications, such as refrigeration and industrial cleaning, until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. After negotiation of an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol), CFC production was sharply limited beginning in 1987 and phased out completely by 1996.

On August 2, 2003, scientists announced that the depletion of the ozone layer may be slowing down due to the international ban on chlorofluorocarbons, chemical compounds containing chlorine, fluorine and carbon. [2] Three satellites and three ground stations confirmed that the upper atmosphere ozone depletion rate has slowed down significantly during the past decade. The study was organized by the American Geophysical Union. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to CFCs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere. CFCs have very long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from 50 to over 100 years, so the final recovery of the ozone layer is expected to require several lifetimes.

[razor]

Seeing as the Sun activity thread seems to have died, I thought I would put this link here. If it doesn't work, it is to a series of articles from the National Post called Climate Change: The Deniers.

www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71

There is a lot of debate on global warming, and if you disagree, you are labeled as a pawn of the oil companies, or a "junk scientist". When reading through the articles, you can see for yourselves the global warming side is not above influence and using "junk science".

It is too bad that in Canada it is all about politics, pleasing the masses that have been influenced by the not so impartial media.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

skilly said:

I would like to know what cause the holes in the ozone layer ....but I wouldn't be surprised that the Sun has some influence on that as well.

The ozone layer can be depleted by free radical catalysts, including nitric oxide (NO), hydroxyl (OH), atomic chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br). While there are natural sources for all of these species, the concentrations of chlorine and bromine have increased markedly in recent years due to the release of large quantities of manmade organohalogen compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and bromofluorocarbons. These highly stable compounds are capable of surviving the rise to the stratosphere, where Cl and Br radicals are liberated by the action of ultraviolet light. Each radical is then free to initiate and catalyze a chain reaction capable of breaking down over 10,000 ozone molecules. Ozone levels, over the northern hemisphere, have been dropping by 4% per decade. Over approximately 5% of the Earth's surface, around the north and south poles, much larger (but seasonal) declines have been seen; these are the ozone holes.

On January 23, 1978, Sweden became the first nation to ban CFC-containing aerosol sprays that are thought to damage the ozone layer. A few other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, followed suit later that year, but the European Community rejected an analogous proposal. Even in the U.S., chlorofluorocarbons continued to be used in other applications, such as refrigeration and industrial cleaning, until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. After negotiation of an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol), CFC production was sharply limited beginning in 1987 and phased out completely by 1996.

On August 2, 2003, scientists announced that the depletion of the ozone layer may be slowing down due to the international ban on chlorofluorocarbons, chemical compounds containing chlorine, fluorine and carbon. [2] Three satellites and three ground stations confirmed that the upper atmosphere ozone depletion rate has slowed down significantly during the past decade. The study was organized by the American Geophysical Union. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to CFCs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere. CFCs have very long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from 50 to over 100 years, so the final recovery of the ozone layer is expected to require several lifetimes.

So holes in the ozone, increased sun activity ... voila, global warming.

[Cranky]

razor said:

Seeing as the Sun activity thread seems to have died, I thought I would put this link here. If it doesn't work, it is to a series of articles from the National Post called Climate Change: The Deniers.

www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71

There is a lot of debate on global warming, and if you disagree, you are labeled as a pawn of the oil companies, or a "junk scientist". When reading through the articles, you can see for yourselves the global warming side is not above influence and using "junk science".

It is too bad that in Canada it is all about politics, pleasing the masses that have been influenced by the not so impartial media.

Thank you for that link. It reinforces what I have been saying all along. What I didn't know was that the eco-nazis are associating their cause with the Holocaust. Any guilt I had by calling them eco-nazis is now gone.

[Cranky]

skilly said:

machabby said:

The ozone layer can be depleted by free radical catalysts, including nitric oxide (NO), hydroxyl (OH), atomic chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br). While there are natural sources for all of these species, the concentrations of chlorine and bromine have increased markedly in recent years due to the release of large quantities of manmade organohalogen compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and bromofluorocarbons. These highly stable compounds are capable of surviving the rise to the stratosphere, where Cl and Br radicals are liberated by the action of ultraviolet light. Each radical is then free to initiate and catalyze a chain reaction capable of breaking down over 10,000 ozone molecules. Ozone levels, over the northern hemisphere, have been dropping by 4% per decade. Over approximately 5% of the Earth's surface, around the north and south poles, much larger (but seasonal) declines have been seen; these are the ozone holes.

On January 23, 1978, Sweden became the first nation to ban CFC-containing aerosol sprays that are thought to damage the ozone layer. A few other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, followed suit later that year, but the European Community rejected an analogous proposal. Even in the U.S., chlorofluorocarbons continued to be used in other applications, such as refrigeration and industrial cleaning, until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. After negotiation of an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol), CFC production was sharply limited beginning in 1987 and phased out completely by 1996.

On August 2, 2003, scientists announced that the depletion of the ozone layer may be slowing down due to the international ban on chlorofluorocarbons, chemical compounds containing chlorine, fluorine and carbon. [2] Three satellites and three ground stations confirmed that the upper atmosphere ozone depletion rate has slowed down significantly during the past decade. The study was organized by the American Geophysical Union. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to CFCs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere. CFCs have very long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from 50 to over 100 years, so the final recovery of the ozone layer is expected to require several lifetimes.

So holes in the ozone, increased sun activity ... voila, global warming.

But that would imply that we alread "solved the problem" and the eco-nazis could no longer ascend to "saviours from Armageddon".