This comment is in support…

This comment is in support of Bill 4 Cap and Trade Cancellation Act.

There is no evidence that cap and trade even works and despite such programs being in place in 2017 the world’s greenhouse gas emissions rose to an all-time high.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2018-06-14/why-carbon-pri…

… and it does nothing to reduce pollution levels:
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/jerry-browns-cap-and-trade-progr…

But what cap and trade does, as indicated in this 2017 Huffington Post article (below) is take from the poor and give to rich speculators.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/christine-van-geyn/cap-and-trade-kathleen…

Cap And Trade Takes From Poor And Gives To Rich

Take from the poor, and give to the rich. The reverse Robin Hood philosophy has been fully embraced by the Ontario government, an odd turn of events for the self-proclaimed "social justice premier."

Nothing shows this philosophy better than the government's newest costly experiment, the cap-and-trade carbon tax.

A spokesperson for Toronto-Centre MPP and Environment Minister Glenn Murray proclaimed that the government is eager to turn the Toronto Stock Exchange into a financial hub for carbon credits, stating that "Ontario's financial sector is well positioned to provide these services and then leverage this expertise to serve other growing carbon markets in Canada and internationally."

In other words -- cap and trade will cost working Joe's at the pumps and in their home heating bills, while Bay Street types get rich trading the new government created commodity.

Cap and trade works by putting a "cap" on the amount of emissions businesses can produce. The government then invents a new tradeable financial product out of thin air, called carbon credits. Businesses who are able to emit below their "cap" are allowed to "trade" those government created carbon credits on a government created "carbon market" to those who need to emit above their "cap."

Effectively, the government uses regulation to invent a demand, and then supplies it themselves.

But businesses are not the only ones entitled to participate in these trades. Cap and trade also allows for "market participants" who can trade on speculation. In fact, the entire idea of a carbon market is designed to encourage speculation, which drives up the price of the carbon credits. Correspondingly, companies that have to buy these expensive credits pass the cost along to customers. This can drive up the price of necessities of life, like home heating fuels and gasoline.

Financial speculators who might otherwise make their money trading stocks, bonds or oil futures, can now get rich trading a commodity that is essentially linked to your higher home heating costs. The higher your bills, the more the big boys on Bay Street make. And the Wynne government wants you to think this is a good thing.

This false market links Ontario with Quebec and California, allowing businesses and speculators to trade across borders. The Auditor General has found that by 2030, this will result in up to $2.2 billion in Ontarian's money leaving Ontario for Quebec and California.

This isn't the first market of its kind -- the experiment has been tried before. In his book Carbon Shock, Mark Shapiro described the European Climate Exchange (ECX) in London, the biggest platform for trading carbon emissions, and where 80 per cent of the European market in carbon credits is traded. For a time, carbon was the fastest-growing commodity in the world. In 2006, 450 million tons of carbon were traded over ECX, and by 2012, that figure had tripled to 1.3 billion tons, and to over 2 billion tons by 2013.

Enron and Goldman Sachs were some of the early adopters of the idea of getting rich speculating on carbon credits, with Enron helping to establish the market for the U.S. SO2 cap-and-trade program in the early 1990s. Enron's former CEO (and convicted felon) Jeffrey Skilling famously said "we are a green energy company, but the green stands for money”.

But since the recession, the European carbon market has all but collapsed. By some estimates, the European Commission had issued €2.2 billion worth of excess carbon credits, essentially flooding the market and causing a huge price drop. The carbon price in Europe went from a high of €29.69 per ton to a current price of €5.17.

Ontario is going down the same path. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario found that the government is handing out free carbon credits to industries that pump out 40 megatons of emissions, worth up to $720 million.

While preferred businesses get handed what is essentially free money by the government and financial speculators get rich, the rest of us will be paying about $400 per household more in 2017.

If the government of Ontario truly wishes to reduce its carbon footprint, government concentration should be focussed instead on preserving and expanding the tree canopy cover throughout the province – a primary source of capturing CO2 emissions – which is fast disappearing. All manner of natural habitat is vanishing and has been made worse by past government actions. If one searches the EBR for the offensive term ‘overall benefit’ – where permits are sought to destroy species at risk habitat and species at risk – there are 374 notices – not one application to destroy species at risk and/or species at risk habitat under the “overall benefit” was denied by the MNRF. This is outrageous.

In addition – the EBR needs a complete overall. What I predict will happen is that lobby groups will use this platform to flood it with automated comments and then use that as a media platform.. not what it was intended for.

99.999% of Ontario citizens have no idea what the Environmental Bill of Rights means or the function of the registry. Ontario residents only become aware of the EBR when fighting proposed residential, commercial and/or industrial developments or policies and regulations that have a direct impact on local communities. Citizens have expectations that concerns posted to the EBR will be listened to and acted upon by the relevant Ministry. After all, those who live within proposed project areas or where regulations/policies will have a great impact are most familiar with local ecosystems and their history and value. It is then a profound disappointment for those who post comments to the EBR to discover, concerns are simply handed over to the developer by the Ministry involved (such as MOECC or MNRF). The developer either dismisses or minimizes concerns. The responses by developers are accepted unquestioned by ministry staff over concerns raised by the public. There is no third party review or even an onsite review by ministry staff. I have talked to MOECC staff serving as project adjudicators who are not familiar with or have even visited project areas proposed for large scale development.

This happens on a regular basis – hundreds, even thousands of comments are submitted regarding proposals for developments of high public local concern, only to have the concerns dismissed by the developer and accepted by government ministries. This means that under the Statement of Environmental Values such as for the former MOECC, The Ministry adopts an ecosystem approach to environmental protection and resource management. This approach views the ecosystem as composed of air, land, water and living organisms, including humans, and the interactions among them. … the ministry is not adopting an ecosystem approach – it is adopting a developer system approach.