(Oct. 17, 2009) Fourteen principled companies abandoned the U.S. Chamber of Commerce this week in protest over climate change. Let’s investigate their principles. Continue reading
Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
October 17, 2009
Fourteen principled companies abandoned the U.S. Chamber of Commerce this week in protest over climate change. Let’s investigate their principles.
The New York Times coverage of the event, focusing on Exelon, one of America’s largest energy companies, frames the issues well. “Climate Bill Splits Exelon and U.S. Chamber,” its headline read. It then quoted Exelon’s long-time CEO, John W. Rowe, who explained that Exelon objected to the chamber’s “stridency against carbon legislation.” Environmentalists cheered the corporate defections, which confirmed their view that climate change reforms made good economic as well as good environmental sense.
“The carbon-based free lunch is over,” stated Rowe. “Breakthroughs on climate change and improving our society’s energy efficiency are within reach.”
John Rowe knows a lot about free lunches. He also is no Johnny-come-lately in coming to the table. Long before most environmental groups discovered the global warming
issue, Rowe was warning of the dangers of climate change. In early 1992 — before the UN’s Maurice Strong and a U.S. senator named Al Gore launched the global warming issue at the Rio Earth Summit — Rowe was testifying in Congress about the need for carbon taxes to protect the planet.
Needless to say, carbon taxes were also needed to protect the nuclear industry, which he represented. At the time, Rowe was CEO of New England Electric System, part owner in the Yankee Rowe Nuclear plant that had to be prematurely decommissioned because the cost of making it safe was deemed uneconomic. Rowe had come to New England Electric System from a stint as CEO of Central Main Power, famed for a ruinous investment in the cancelled Seabrook nuclear power plant. Now as CEO of Exelon, he oversees the largest fleet of nuclear reactors in the U.S., those at ill-fated Three Mile Island among them. Every single reactor in Exelon’s fleet needed government backing to be built — neither Exelon nor any other company in the private sector has ever been willing to accept the full financial risk of nuclear power.
Exelon plans to build more nuclear plants — but only if taxpayers will overwhelmingly assume the expense. Thanks to subsidies established by the Bush administration in the hopes of kick-starting a nuclear renaissance, the federal government promises to pick up much of the capital costs and much of the operating costs of a future round of nuclear plants. But that isn’t enough to make new nuclear plants competitive. For nuclear to succeed, competing technologies that don’t require subsidies — and especially coal-fired plants, which Exelon lacks — must be brought down by regulation.
This is the forte of Rowe, a lawyer by training. No one has a more stellar record in the realm of regulatory rule-making, no one has more ingeniously struck deals with environmentalists and government regulators alike, no one more keenly appreciates how the law can be used to cripple a competitor, no one has more tirelessly lobbied for climate change legislation, the biggest club ever devised against the fossil fuel industry.
Hence Rowe’s distaste for anything that stands in the way of regulations that eviscerate his competition. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing three million businesses, most of which won’t benefit from higher energy costs, is standing in his way.
What exactly has the Chamber of Commerce done to earn so much vitriol from environmentalists and corporate defectors alike (the former now refer to the latter as “green corporations”)? Its most egregious act was to ask the Environmental Protection Agency to hold public hearings on proposed EPA regulations associated with global warming, to determine the best way to achieve health goals without harming the economy. The EPA had asked for comment on its proposed regulations, but had planned to make its decisions behind closed doors.
Normally environmental organizations champion the transparency of public hearings; in this case they preferred private deliberations, particularly when a chamber official analogized its proposed hearing to the Scopes monkey trial of the 1920s, which decided, over the objection of creationists, that evolution could be taught in the schools.
The Chamber of Commerce’s other major crime, in the view of its critics, is to recognize the existence of a public debate on climate change through its annual selection of 10 Books That Drive the Debate on different public policy issues. Last year, my book, The Deniers, was one of the 10 books featured. To further public understanding, the Chamber of Commerce then arranged a public debate between me and the senior scientist at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, perhaps America’s leading NGO in the field of climate change catastrophe.
Behaviour like this, in the view of Exelon’s CEO, amounts to “stridency against carbon legislation.” I see no stridency from the chamber’s side, other than in promoting a transparent process and public debate to protect its members against legislation that hasn’t been fully aired and tested.
In contrast, I do see stridency in Exelon which, for private gain, is trying to cow the Chamber of Commerce for doing its job in protecting three million members from needless cost.
With the defection of Exelon and the rest of the “principled 14,” the membership of the Chamber of Commerce will be down to 2,999,986. But it will have retained its principles. As for Exelon, it, too, is doing its job of enriching its shareholders. That enrichment, largely at public expense, is the only principle that I can detect at Exelon.
Read the previous article in the Climate Profiteers series.
(Oct. 16, 2009) Australians are the latest citizenry to turn against climate change catastrophism. For the first time, according to a Lowy poll released this week, a majority of the population turned thumbs down to the proposition that “global warming is a serious and pressing problem. Continue reading
Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
October 16, 2009
Australians are the latest citizenry to turn against climate change catastrophism. For the first time, according to a Lowy poll released this week, a majority of the population turned thumbs down to the proposition that “global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.” This rejection applied to younger segments of the population as well as old, especially disappointing to Australian decision makers, given their efforts to indoctrinate youths through the educational system.
Last year, 60% of the populace bought into global warming fears and in 2006, the figure was 68%.
Neither did Aussies view tackling global warming as particularly important. When compared to other foreign policy issues, such as illegal immigration, protecting jobs, combating terrorism, strengthening the United Nations, or protecting Australians living abroad, climate change fared miserably. In fact, of the 10 foreign policy issues the poll cited, only “promoting democracy in other countries” was deemed less of a priority.
The Australian results come the same week that the United Kingdom’s Department of Energy and Climate Change released a survey showing most Britons do not fear harm from climate change. Until last week, the government had kept up a brave face, refusing to acknowledge that its relentless efforts over decades to convince the public of the need for action on climate change had failed.
With Copenhagen fast approaching, the government has decided to pull out all the stops with an unprecedented prime time TV ad campaign to turn public opinion around. “The survey results show that people don’t realize that climate change is already under way and could have severe consequences,” Joan Ruddock, the Energy and Climate Change Minister explained in justifying the need for her aggressive campaign. The £6-million ad campaign showing scenes of devastation through animation — flooding, drowning animals and humans, a sign that reads “The World’s End” — fittingly premiered on the night-time soap opera, Coronation Street, with an ad entitled “Bedtime stories.”
Editor’s note: This article is revised version of a story that first appeared in Lawrence Solomon’s Energy Probe blog.
Tim Flannery, a famous Australian environmentalist was recently interviewed by a number of Canadian media outlets, including the CBC and CPAC. I found his appearance most bizarre.
His home country of Australia is one of roughly a dozen nations worldwide that have (1) higher per capita GHGs than Canada and (2) have exhibited a higher rate of GHG growth since 1990 than Canada. I found it bizarre to see his disapproval of Canada aired on CBC, yesterday, given the performance of his home nation.
Including GHGs from deforestation, Aussie’s annual emissions increased 82% between 1990 and 2007, compared to 46.7% for Canada. Per capita GHGs totaled 39.80 tons of CO2 emissions per person in Australia, compared to 24.06 for Canada.
In August, the Australian Senate rejected a cap and trade bill, but an amended, less aggressive version of the bill will be represented to the Senate for a new vote and will likely pass 1st and 2nd reading in November. But even the August version of the Aussie cap and trade bill fails to reduce per capita Aussie emissions down to current Canadian per capita emission levels by 2020.
I think climate change is a real risk and actively advocate for GHG regulations. But I also oppose "cap and trade"—which is just a fancy name for quota-based supply management. As in our other supply-managed markets—dairy, turkey, chicken, municipal taxis, etc.—the only thing that happens when we introduce a quota-type market management tool is that big corporations with deep pockets take all. A quota supply inevitable becomes concentrated in the hands of a small number of cash rich market participants, innovation rates slow down and economic returns to persons and entities that actually make things shrink, as the rents that used to accrue to production are eaten up by quota lease costs.
What Flannery failed to acknowledge is that the problem with Kyoto/Copenhagen and his message is that they have sacrificed the goal for the means. They are not focused on practical measures to cut GHG emissions. They are focused on building an inefficient quota-based global market control mechanism that will not result in GHG reductions. While most of the public do not understand this, they intuitively get that the facile GHG management proposals do not make sense.
"Put a price on carbon", "trade carbon" and "tax carbon" are not functional GHG mitigation plans. They are, at best, slogans.
(Oct. 15, 2009) What if we applied corporate standards to the “science” that is driving global warming policy?
Imagine the reaction if investment companies provided only rosy stock and economic data to prospective investors; manufacturers withheld chemical spill statistics from government regulators; or medical device and pharmaceutical companies doctored data on patients injured by their products. Continue reading
Australians are the latest citizenry of a western country to turn against climate change catastrophism. For the first time, according to a Lowy poll released this week, a majority of the population turned thumbs down to the proposition that "global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs." This rejection applied to younger segments of the population as well as old, especially disappointing to decision makers, given their efforts to indoctrinate youths through the educational system.
Last year, 60% of the populace bought into global warming fears and in 2006, the figure was 68%.
Neither did Aussies view tackling global warming as particularly important. When compared to other foreign policy issues, such as illegal immigration, protecting jobs, combating terrorism, strengthening the United Nations, or protecting Australians living abroad, climate change fared miserably. In fact, of the 10 foreign policy issues the poll cited, only "promoting democracy in other countries" was deemed less of a priority.
The full poll results can be found here.
Paul Driessen
American Daily
October 15, 2009
What if we applied corporate standards to the “science” that is driving global warming policy?
Imagine the reaction if investment companies provided only rosy stock and economic data to prospective investors; manufacturers withheld chemical spill statistics from government regulators; or medical device and pharmaceutical companies doctored data on patients injured by their products.
Media frenzies, congressional hearings, regulatory investigations, fines and jail sentences would come faster than you can say Henry Waxman. If those same standards were applied to global warming alarmists, many of them would be fined, dismissed and imprisoned, sanity might prevail, and the House-Senate cap-and-tax freight train would come to a screeching halt.
Fortunately for alarmists, corporate standards do not apply – even though sloppiness, ineptitude, cherry-picking, exaggeration, deception, falsification, concealed or lost data, flawed studies and virtual fraud have become systemic and epidemic. Instead of being investigated and incarcerated, the perpetrators are revered and rewarded, receiving billions in research grants, mandates, subsidies and other profit-making opportunities.
On this bogus foundation Congress, EPA and the White House propose to legislate and regulate our nation’s energy and economic future. Understanding the scams is essential. Here are just a few of them.
Michael Mann’s hockey-stick-shaped historical temperature chart supposedly proved that twentieth century warming was “unprecedented” in the last 2000 years. After it became the centerpiece of the UN climate group’s 2001 Third Assessment Report, Canadian analysts Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre asked Mann to divulge his data and statistical algorithms. Mann refused. Ultimately, Mc-Mc, the National Science Foundation and investigators led by renowned statistician Edward Wegman found that the hockey stick was based on cherry-picked tree-ring data and a computer program that generated temperature spikes even when random numbers were fed into it. (1)
This year, another “unprecedented” warming study went down in flames. Lead scientist Keith Briffa managed to keep his tree-ring data secret for a decade, during which the study became a poster child for climate alarmism. Finally, McKitrick and McIntyre gained access to the data. Amazingly, there were 252 cores in the Yamal group, plus cores from other Siberian locations. Together, they showed no anomalous warming trend due to rising carbon dioxide levels. But Briffa selected just twelve cores, to “prove” a dramatic recent temperature spike, and chose three cores that “demonstrated” there had never been a Medieval Warm Period. It was a case study in how to lie with statistics. (2)
Meanwhile, scientists associated with Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) also withheld temperature data and methods, while publishing papers that lent support to climate chaos claims, hydrocarbon taxes and restrictions, and renewable energy mandates. In response to one request, lead scientist Phil Jones replied testily: “Why should I make the data available, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Of course, that’s what the scientific method is all about – subjecting data, methods and analyses to rigorous testing, to confirm or refute theories and conclusions. When pressure to release the original data became too intense to ignore, the CRU finally claimed it had “lost” (destroyed?) all the original data. (3)
The supposedly “final” text of the IPCC’s 1995 Second Assessment Report emphasized that no studies had found clear evidence that observed climate changes could be attributed to greenhouse gases or other manmade causes. However, without the authors’ and reviewers’ knowledge or approval, lead author Dr. Ben Santer and alarmist colleagues revised the text and inserted the infamous assertion that there is “a discernable human influence” on Earth’s climate. (4)
Highly accurate satellite measurements show no significant global warming, whereas ground-based temperature stations show warming since 1978. However, half of the surface monitoring stations are located close to concrete and asphalt parking lots, window or industrial-size air conditioning exhausts, highways, airport tarmac and even jetliner engines – all of which skew the data upward. The White House, EPA, IPCC and Congress use the deceptive data anyway, to promote their agenda. (5)
With virtually no actual evidence to link CO2 and global warming, the climate chaos community has to rely increasingly on computer models. However, the models do a poor job of portraying an incredibly complex global climate system that scientists are only beginning to understand; assume carbon dioxide is a principle driving force; inadequately handle cloud, solar, precipitation, ocean currents and other critical factors; and incorporate assumptions and data that many experts say are inadequate or falsified. The models crank out (worst-case) climate change scenarios that often conflict with one another. Not one correctly forecast the planetary cooling that began earlier this century, as CO2 levels continued to climb.
Al Gore’s climate cataclysm movie is replete with assertions that are misleading, dishonest or what a British court chastised as “partisan” propaganda about melting ice caps, rising sea levels, hurricanes, malaria, “endangered” polar bears and other issues. But the film garnered him Oscar and Nobel awards, speaking and expert witness appearances, millions of dollars, and star status with UN and congressional interests that want to tax and penalize energy use and economic growth. Perhaps worse, a recent Society of Environmental Journalists meeting made it clear that those supposed professionals are solidly behind Mr. Gore and his apocalyptic beliefs, and will defend him against skeptics. (6)
These and other scandals have slipped past the peer review process that is supposed to prevent them and ensure sound science for a simple reason. Global warming disaster papers are written and reviewed by closely knit groups of scientists, who mutually support one another’s work. The same names appear in different orders on a series of “independent” reports, all of which depend on the same original data, as in the Yamal case. Scientific journals refuse to demand the researchers’ data and methodologies. And as in the case of Briffa, the IPCC and journals typically ignore and refuse to publish contrary studies.
Scandals like these prompted EPA career analyst Alan Carlin to prepare a detailed report, arguing that the agency should not find that CO2 “endangers” human health and welfare, because climate disaster predictions were not based on sound science. EPA suppressed his report and told Carlin not to talk to anyone outside his immediate office, on the ground that his “comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision,” which the agency supposedly would not make for several more weeks. (7)
The endless litany of scandals underscores the inconvenient truth about global warming hysteria. The White House, Congress and United Nations are imperiling our future on the basis of deceptive science, phony “evidence” and worthless computer models. The climate protection racket will enrich Al Gore, alarmist scientists who get the next $89 billion in US government research money, financial institutions that process trillion$$ in carbon trades, and certain companies, like those that recently left the US Chamber of Commerce. For everyone else, it will mean massive pain for no environmental gain. (8)
Still not angry and disgusted? Read Chris Horner’s Red Hot Lies, Lawrence Solomon’s Financial Post articles, Steve Milloy’s Green Hell, and Benny Peiser’s CCNet daily climate policy review. Go to a premier showing of Not Evil Just Wrong. (9)
Then get on your telephone or computer, and tell your legislators and local media this nonsense has got to stop. It may be that none dare call it fraud – but it comes perilously close.
NOTES
(1) http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
(2) http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/01/ross-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx
(3) http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=#more
(4) http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/ipccflap.htm
(5) http://WattsUpWithThat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
(6) http://tinyurl.com/yk8uhws
(7) http://www.globalwarming.org/?s=alan+carlin
(8) http://AllPainNoGain.cfact.org/
(9) Horner http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/1596985380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255463779&sr=1-1
Solomon http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/LawrenceSolomon.html
Milloy http://www.amazon.com/Green-Hell-Environmentalists-Plan-Control/dp/1596985852/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
Peiser: to subscribe, send email request to listserver@ljmu.ac.uk
Film http://NotEvilJustWrong.com
The City of Toronto today unveiled a clever new program, called HEAT, through which high-rise apartment dwellers get to pay for the home insulation of their low-rise neighbours. Apartment dwellers don’t consume much energy compared to house owners, the city undoubtedly reasoned, making the HEAT program (for Home Energy Assistance Toronto) of little use to the renters. Plus, since apartment dwellers already pay much more than their share of property taxes, having renters contribute a bit more so that homeowners may benefit merely continues a well established principle.
Under the new program, homeowners, who tend to be far more affluent than the renters who will be subsidizing them, will benefit by up to $1000. Even more important to those clever councillors who approved the program: Homeonwers vote in greater proportion than renters.
Details on how to take advantage of tenants and this program are available here: http://energy.probeinternational.org/conservation/electricity/city-launches-new-home-renovation-grant-program
City of toronto
October 14, 2009
The City of Toronto today launched Home Energy Assistance Toronto (HEAT), a new incentive program offering residents up to $1,000 when they upgrade their home insulation. HEAT is open to residents of low-rise residential properties, such as detached and semi-detached houses, and townhomes, and is designed to encourage Torontonians to undertake improvements to increase their home’s energy efficiency and reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions.
“Providing grants to make the homes of Torontonians more energy efficient benefits us all,” said Toronto Mayor David Miller. “Grants like this allow for the creation of green jobs and decrease our overall energy demands, which in turn reduces greenhouse gas emissions. HEAT will empower residents to act locally to not only save money but to clean our air and protect our environment as well.”
There are approximately 450,000 low-rise residential buildings in Toronto today, which account for 19 per cent of electricity and 36 per cent of natural gas consumption in the city. According to research from Ontario Power Authority (2006), residents who retrofit their insulation and use electricity to heat and cool their homes will save, on average, more than 2000 kWh of energy, over $150 on their annual energy bill, and 0.5 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Residents who use gas will save 600 cubic metres, more than $250 on their annual energy bill, and an estimated 1.2 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from entering the air.
Home Energy Assistance Toronto is a partnership with Federal ecoENERGY Retrofit-Homes, and means that homeowners can now access insulation grants of up to $8,750 in total from all three levels of government. Residents who undertake other important energy efficient upgrades (such as improving toilets, doors, windows or heating and cooling systems) can leverage even more funds – up to a combined $11,000.
“Our Government is working with partners like the City of Toronto to deliver results for our economy today and benefits for homeowners and our environment for years to come,” said the Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Natural Resources. “Canadians across the country are participating in the ecoENERGY Retrofit Homes program. This program is creating and protecting jobs in our communities and putting money in the hands of Canadians at a time when they need it most.”
To be eligible for HEAT funds, homeowners must follow the steps (web link in Backgrounder) outlined by ecoENERGY Retrofit-Homes. The steps include hiring a Certified Energy Advisor to conduct a Home Energy Assessment, both before and after renovations.
Toronto is committed to combating climate change. In 2007, City Council unanimously adopted the Climate Change, Clean Air and Sustainable Energy Action Plan, an environmental framework aimed at reducing Toronto’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
Home Energy Assistance Toronto is an important tactic in this aggressive plan, which is why $9 million has been earmarked for HEAT, which will run until March 2012. It is estimated that approximately 9,000 to 12,000 householders will access these home improvement grants during this period.
For more information about HEAT and other City of Toronto environmental programs, click here.
Toronto is Canada’s largest city and sixth largest government, and home to a diverse population of about 2.6 million people. It is the economic engine of Canada and one of the greenest and most creative cities in North America. Toronto has won numerous awards for quality, innovation and efficiency in delivering public services. 2009 marks the 175th anniversary of Toronto’s incorporation as a city. Toronto’s government is dedicated to prosperity, opportunity and liveability for all its residents.
Backgrounder
The City of Toronto today launched Home Energy Assistance Toronto (HEAT), a new incentive program offering residents up to $1,000 when they upgrade their home insulation.
Home Energy Assistance Toronto is open to homeowners of low-rise residential properties including single detached, semi-detached, attached (i.e. row houses) and small multi-unit buildings (three storeys or less and maximum footprint of 600 square metres).
HEAT is a partnership with Federal ecoENERGY Retrofit-Homes. To be eligible, homeowners must follow the steps outlined by the Federal program, which include the need to hire an Energy Advisor, certified by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), to conduct a Home Energy Assessment prior to renovation. For more information on eligibility requirements, click here.
The advisor begins by conducting a Home Energy Assessment and creates a personalized Energy Efficiency Evaluation Homeowner Report. This report states the home’s current efficiency rating and features a list of measures that could be completed to reduce its energy consumption, along with grants for each listed improvement. Suggested retrofits could include upgrades to insulation, as well as windows, doors, heating and cooling systems, plus ways to conserve water.
In total, ecoENERGY Retrofit-Homes offers residents up to $5,000 in home efficiency grants. Ontario’s Home Energy Savings Program then matches these grants for another $5,000 (maximum). When combined with HEAT, this means that homeowners can now access up to $11,000 in total grants when they upgrade their home insulation, and also implement other important energy efficient upgrades.
The amounts specifically related to Home Energy Assistance Toronto by area of insulation include:
Ceiling:
. Up to $200 from the City of Toronto
. Up to $1,500 in Federal and Provincial grants
Walls:
. Up to $500 from the City of Toronto
. Up to $3,750 in Federal and Provincial grants
Foundation:
. Up to $300 from the City of Toronto
. Up to $2,500 in Federal and Provincial grants
Visit http://.www.livegreentoronto.ca for more information on the recommended insulation measures for each area of the home.
The decision for Toronto to fund insulation upgrades was based on findings from ecoENERGY Retrofit-Homes. According to Natural Resources Canada, 78 per cent of program participants in Ontario have replaced their heating systems. This is the most common measure undertaken compared to only 20 per cent uptake for re-insulating the attic, 12 per cent for basement insulation, and nine per cent for walls.
NRCan also completed a customer survey of EnerGuide for Houses (the predecessor to ecoENERGY) in 2005 to identify why participating homeowners did not follow through with all of their recommended energy efficiency upgrades. Insulation was the measure identified as the least commonly employed measure, with “high cost of work” listed as the main deterrent by 62 per cent of customers in Ontario. Initial capital investment was also identified as a barrier.
According to research by the Toronto Atmospheric Fund (in collaboration with local contractors), the grant amounts from the City, Province, and Government of Canada should provide residents who upgrade their insulation to the prescribed levels, with approximately 70 per cent of the costs, on average.
City Council has approved $9 million in Home Energy Assistance Toronto grants over the next four years. It is estimated that approximately 9,000 to 12,000 residents will access HEAT funds during this time with an average individual savings of 0.5 tonnes (electrically-heated homes) to 1.2 tonnes (gas-heated homes) of greenhouse gas emissions.
HEAT funds are available to residents who fulfill the eligibility criteria and complete their home renovations between August 6, 2009 (the date of Council’s decision to implement HEAT) and March 31, 2012.
In order to receive the grants, residents need to book a post-retrofit Home Energy Assessment with their Certified Energy Advisor. During this final stage, the Advisor will complete and submit the grant application to NRCan.
The cheque from ecoENERGY Retrofit-Homes will arrive approximately 90 days following the post assessment, followed by another four weeks for the cheques from the Province and City of Toronto.
For more information on HEAT and other City of Toronto environmental programs, visit http://www.livegreentoronto.ca.
Toronto is Canada’s largest city and sixth largest government, and home to a diverse population of about 2.6 million people. It is the economic engine of Canada and one of the greenest and most creative cities in North America. Toronto has won numerous awards for quality, innovation and efficiency in delivering public services. 2009 marks the 175th anniversary of Toronto’s incorporation as a city. Toronto’s government is dedicated to prosperity, opportunity and liveability for all its residents.
Support our campaign
to stop disastrous global
warming policies!
Energy Probe 