Not that this comes as a surprise, but in case you thought the PCs plan to be gentle on the green energy file if elected, think again. Below are comments made on Dec. 19 by Progressive Conservative MPP Monte McNaughton, representing Lambton-Kent-Middlesex. McNaughton was speaking at a municipal council meeting, during which he outlined how his party, if elected this year, plans to obliterate the province’s feed-in-tariff program, including reneging on thousands of projects in the queue. It seems the PCs don’t just want to get rid of the FIT program, but are hostile to wind and solar power altogether and plan to alter course dramatically, starting with a moratorium on all green energy development. This would include a big commitment to build new nuclear reactors at a time when there is nothing but controversy around the high cost and long-term dangers of the nuclear option. In other words, the PCs would bring Ontario’s grid back to the dark ages with a false promise that doing so would cause electricity prices to fall, which couldn’t be further from the truth. As usual, McNaughton spews mistruths about the high cost of wind and fails to mention the much higher cost of going nuclear.

But you can read for yourself where the PCs stand by reading excerpts of his comments below:

…we realize that when we make the commitment, we’re not going to build them, if they’re not built. So scrap the 50,000 projects that are in the queue.  We realize that there is going to be a cost, our lawyers have told us that there are opt-out clauses and we sure as hell are going to pay those out because it’s going to be cheaper to pay them out than to honour contracts for 20 years. So we’ve been clear that we will not going ahead with however many projects are left, if we’re fortunate enough to form the next government after the next election. But clearly there will be a cost associated with that, but it will be cheaper to buy them out than to honour them for 20 years.

Secondly, I guess we’re not going to know the entire extent of all of these contracts signed until if we form government, until we actually get in and take office. That’s why we’ve been clear that in the 24 hours after the election, we’re going to call for a moratorium. But we are going to call for a moratorium almost immediately so we can figure where the hell things are at and how deep a hole energy has gotten us into.

When Health Canada announced in July that it would study the relationship between wind turbine noise and health effects, the government said it was responding to questions from residents who live near wind farms.

“As always, our government is putting the health and safety of Canadians first,” read a Health Canada statement, which outlined the research approach it would take, while stating that the results would be published in 2014.

John Andrews, president of IPC Energy, a wind energy developer based in Mississauga, was surprised by the move.

The modern wind turbine has been in commercial use since the 1970s. Surely others, especially the Europeans, had more experience than a late-comer like Canada. If turbines were bad for us, wouldn’t the red flags have emerged in Germany and Denmark? Or are Danes and Germans genetically different from Canadians?

By the end of 2012, there was expected to be 280 gigawatts of wind capacity installed worldwide — equaling roughly 140,000 average-sized wind turbines. Even so, a comprehensive study released in early 2012 by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health concluded “there is insufficient evidence that the noise from wind turbines is directly causing health problems or disease.”

But that’s not what really bothered Andrews. After all, the more studies the merrier to prove that wind turbines are, in fact, as benign as your electric toothbrush, cell phone or SUV. What raised his ire was the fact that the federal government has yet to do a comprehensive study on the oil sands and its effects on human health.

In a letter to federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkag, Andrews asked a simple question: Why the double standard?

Aglukkaq’s response, in a letter dated Aug. 16, stated: “The provinces and territories have the designated authority for determining and mitigating potential health impacts within their jurisdictions for any resource development.

“Health Canada has not undertaken any studies as to the impacts to health from the oil sands developments, as these potential impacts fall within the jurisdiction of the province or territory in which the project receives approval.”

But wind is a natural resource, too. And electricity generation is provincial jurisdiction. Shouldn’t the same reasoning apply to the potential health impacts of wind turbines? Aglukkaq didn’t address this. Indeed, she left out any mention of “wind” in her response to Andrews.

It’s only fair to mention that wind energy isn’t without its problems. The turbines do make noise, becoming an annoyance to some if not properly located. There’s no question that some wind developers need to be more responsible.

Wind turbines do kill birds, but at about the same rate as nuclear power and far less than coal plants, buildings, communications towers and cats.

The wind farm construction process does temporarily kick up dirt on roads, like any infrastructure project.

The turbines don’t generate electricity on demand, but this is manageable with new wind forecasting technologies and when used in combination with demand-response, other forms of generation and smart grid tools, such as energy storage.

For some, they do spoil the view.

But this is a form of electricity generation that emits zero pollution and requires zero fuel. Shale gas extraction using hydraulic fracturing methods is contaminating drinking water in the U.S. northeast. Pollution from fossil-fuel power plants and vehicle tailpipes continue to impose a heavy burden on our healthcare system. Oil pipelines are springing leaks. Offshore oil rigs are running aground in sensitive Arctic waters. The Arctic is melting far faster than our earlier worst predictions. Coral reefs are dying off at an alarming rate. Biodiversity is rapidly dwindling.

There’s plenty to be concerned about in the world — both near and far — and for those of us inclined to speak out, there’s plenty to protest. Given the above, which is a mere sample of humanity’s reckless footprint, it’s perplexing that that a certain segment of the population chooses to treat the wind industry as its punching bag.

Busloads of anti-wind protesters routinely hijack municipal information sessions and council meetings, shouting down wind-industry officials and slinging profanities. The Power Workers’ Union continues to run advertisements that criticize wind and sugar-coat nuclear and coal power.

In July, one anti-wind protester allegedly pulled a shotgun on a London wind-farm worker who was sitting in his vehicle. It hardly made the news. Can you imagine if that happened to an oil sands or nuclear worker?

My own writing about wind issues has also been attacked, having twice been the subject of a complaint to the Ontario Press Council, which tossed out the matter both times.

The Environmental Review Tribunal has been inundated with appeals from wind-farm opponents, who claim turbines harm human health and that a moratorium should be placed on their development. The appeals typically go nowhere because of lack of evidence.

One opponent has gone so far as to argue that wind farms should be disallowed not because it will harm health, but because certain individuals believe wind turbines will make them sick.

By that standard, we should put a moratorium on . . . well, everything.

It’s because of all this that I believe the wind industry, which employs thousands of people in Canada and is an important and growing contributor to our economy, will and should start hitting back in 2013.

Enough is enough.

NOTE: And for those looking to debunk the claims of those against offshore wind, you may want to check out this excellent blog post by Mark Lynas.

Tyler Hamilton, author of Mad Like Tesla, writes weekly about green energy and clean technologies.

After reading it, it’s no surprise that Ontario’s environment ministry drew zero attention to its latest annual greenhouse-gas report, which was made available on the ministry’s website on Nov. 13.

To put is generously, the report is uninspiring. It says nothing new. It shows little progress over the past 12 to 24 months, which you can bet Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller will highlight when he releases his own assessment of the province’s climate strategy on Dec. 4.

The report does describe climate change as “the defining issue of our times,” and goes into great detail to show how rising average temperature, shorter winters, and increased frequency of extreme weather will negatively affect our health, water supply, agriculture, electricity system, infrastructure, personal property, and ecosystems.

It’s a message, by the way, being repeated around the world. Federal Environment Minister Peter Kent called climate change a “real and present” danger just this week. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said after Hurricane Sandy that the risks of climate change should “compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”

A report this week from the World Bank said the anticipated impacts of climate change “will pose unprecedented challenges to humanity” and “must not be allowed to occur.” Surely, we’ll be hearing similar high-level warnings as we approach the start of the Doha Climate Change Conference in Qatar on Nov. 26.

Despite all this talk, not enough is being done to adequately address the problem. Not Kent. Not President Obama, the man who Bloomberg endorsed in the recent U.S. election. Not the World Bank, which continues to finance the construction of coal-fired power plants in the developing world.

Closer to home, the McGuinty government’s climate strategy continues to disappoint, and there are too few initiatives in the pipeline to meet stated targets.

The province’s commitment is to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2014, and to 15 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

The report estimates – quite optimistically, many would say – that we’re likely to meet 91 per cent of our 2014 target and only 60 per cent of our 2020 target, and that’s based on the assumption that initiatives in place today will meet their mark.

Most of the heavy lifting so far has come from the electricity sector, explained by the transition from coal-fired power generation to natural gas, renewables and increased nuclear output. Since 1990, emissions here have dropped 21 per cent, with most of the reductions happening since 2007.

Industry, representing roughly a quarter of the province’s emissions – more than twice as much as the electricity sector – saw a 30 per cent drop in emissions as Ontario continued its transition from energy-intensive manufacturing to a service-based economy and absorbed the impact of an economic downturn.

Unfortunately, emissions from the transportation sector – representing a whopping 35 per cent of the provincial total – grew by 31 per cent since 1990, and there’s little evidence that planned transit projects are going to make the dent required. The strategy here seems to be hope, wait and see.

Emissions from buildings, including residential homes, commercial office towers, and institutional buildings, also grew by 11 per cent. It’s a clear sign the province has dropped the ball on energy conservation, and paid too little attention to the amount of emissions resulting from natural gas heating.

Natural gas, it should be noted, will also emerge as an issue in the electricity sector. Burning less coal and more natural gas makes sense right now, but after 2014 and as the province’s nuclear fleet goes through a cycle of refurbishments and decommissioning, rising dependence on (and emissions from) natural gas will be a reminder that the coal phase-out alone isn’t enough.

The government’s apparent lack of commitment to the feed-in tariff program is also concerning. It has been on hold for more than a year, without explanation – an embarrassing situation that is going to drive away foreign investment, threaten recently created and future jobs, and leave the promises of renewable energy unfulfilled.

To be fair, Ontario’s emissions have fallen substantially on a per-capita and GDP basis. An average Ontarian contributes 24 per cent fewer emissions today than in 1990. For every dollar of GDP, emissions have dropped by 38 per cent. Quebec is the only province with a lower emissions intensity.

But there’s so much more we can and should be doing, and in a way that will strengthen – not weaken – our economy.

I asked Gord Miller what he planned to say when releasing his own report on Dec. 4, but understandably the environmental commissioner didn’t want to scoop himself.

He did say, however, that he will continue to push for a price on carbon and that the time to reconsider it might be right. California, for example, just completed a cap-and-trade auction as part of its membership in the Western Climate Initiative.

“There is a tremendous global shift in attitude about pricing carbon that we must re-align with,” he said by e-mail. “A carbon tax seems to be the more workable and successful system, but I won’t object to a well-constructed cap-and-trade system. Anything would be nice.”

Cap-and-trade used to be in play in Ontario, but the political will to implement it has weakened.

Hopefully that will soon change, as a price on carbon could certainly fill many holes in the Liberal government’s current plan, assuming it believes actions must match up with words.

Tyler Hamilton, author of Mad Like Tesla, writes weekly about green energy and clean technologies.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence, or maybe it’s clever politicking, but Kathleen Wynne made a smart move last month.

Two weeks before resigning her cabinet post and announcing her intentions to run for leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party, the MPP for Don Valley West signed amendments to two pieces of legislation that could potentially fill a gaping hole in the province’s troubled energy policy.

Exercising her authority as minister of municipal affairs and housing, Wynne approved changes to the Municipal Act and City of Toronto Act that empower all municipalities in Ontario to take the lead on energy and water conservation programs.

Specifically, municipalities such as Toronto can now use a financing tool called a local improvement charge (LIC) to help property owners finance changes to their homes that are aimed at reducing energy or water consumption.

This is important, as the McGuinty government has neglected to follow through on the conservation promises of its own Green Energy Act, despite the fact that improving energy efficiency is the lowest cost and fastest way to save energy and reduce the environmental impacts of electricity generation.

Previously, local improvement charges could only be used to finance neighbourhood infrastructure projects. If a town or city replaced a sewer pipe or repaved a road, it could spread part of the cost among those property owners that stand to benefit. This would be visible as a special charge added to property tax bills.

The amendments, first proposed back in May, now make it possible for municipalities to apply the LIC model to energy or water efficiency projects taken on by individual property owners.

So what’s the big deal? As I wrote back in June, the amendments mean that municipalities can leverage their ability to raise cheap capital through bond issues.

They can then turn around and offer low-interest financing to property owners looking to insulate their homes, add energy-efficient windows, install smart thermostats, and upgrade to high-efficiency furnaces, air conditioners and water heaters.

Property owners could then pay back the loan over 10 or more years through their property taxes, with the idea being that annual payments would be less than annual energy or water savings. Another bonus is that existing municipal billing systems can be leveraged.

There are many names for this kind of program. When focused on energy conservation, programs are often called Property Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits, or PAPER. When designed to encourage installation of renewable energy, such as rooftop solar, it’s called Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE. The legislative changes in Ontario allow for both types of programs to be created.

“I would say that over 50 municipalities are so far interested in this model,” said Sonja Persram, president of Toronto-based Sustainable Alternatives Consulting Inc., who has been a major champion of the proposed legislative changes. “Of those, a fairly large number — both large and small — are keen to move forward.”

Ontario is now the third jurisdiction in Canada — behind Yukon and Nova Scotia — to embrace LICs as a method for stimulating efficiency investments by easing the upfront capital burden that often make such investments unpalatable for property owners.

Brian Kelly, manager of sustainability for the Region of Durham, said what amounts to a minor regulatory change on Wynne’s part opens the door for municipalities to stimulate major residential retrofit activity, create local jobs, and at the same time help consumers do what they need to do to lower energy and water costs.

There’s little, if any, political or financial risk to the province. But the impact is potentially huge, in terms of lowering emissions, reducing pressure on utility infrastructure, and spurring economic activity.

Toronto councillor Mike Layton, who is pushing the city to launch a pilot project as soon as possible, called the approved amendments an “exciting” development. “Staff will be bringing a pilot project in coming months and I hope we can find money to fund it,” said Layton. “It would be great if we can start getting some real pickup on this.”

The Toronto Real Estate Board, the Toronto Board of Trade, as well as several labour organizations, NGOs and business leaders, have so far backed Layton’s efforts.

As far as seeing the model expanded country-wide, Natural Resources Canada considers the approach a complement or alternative to incentive-based programs that overcomes two barriers: Upfront access to capital and a practical way to pay back loans — i.e. through municipal or local utility billing infrastructure.

“These mechanisms are key to market transformation, helping homeowners move away from reliance on government subsidies to a more market-based arrangement,” according to the ministry.

The federal EcoEnergy home retrofit program, underpinned by nearly $200 million in subsidies, only tapped into 6 per cent of Canada’s housing stock.

“This is potentially a huge spur for the Ontario economy,” said Persram, who expects to see plenty of municipal collaboration on program development. “This allows municipalities to take control of their own destiny.”

If the approach is successful, the Liberal government — perhaps one day Wynne — can take credit for the heavy lifting it has essentially offloaded.

All it took was a signature.

Tyler Hamilton, author of Mad Like Tesla, writes weekly about green energy and clean technologies.