climate change

February 2, 2007

Yesterday morning as my 5 year old daughter and I were getting ready for our walk to her junior kindergarden she asked me whether or not the groundhog had seen its shadow. Groundhog Day? Is it that time of the year already? How did my 5 year old learn about Groundhog Day? Didn’t matter, she reminded me that it was that time of the year to draw a cartoon on the issue. It’s a day that comes and goes and is easy to miss for cartoonists. The day combined with famous rodents lends itself well to politics and politicians in general. So, I quickly drew up this cartoon to celebrate the occasion. It doesn’t appear in the Spec, but it was available to newspapers through my syndicate at 9:30 am the day before.

January 19, 2007

I came across a discussion on a messageboard where Green Party supporters were weighing in their thoughts on above cartoon featuring their leader Elizabeth May:

Soumis par Gareth Davies le 25 Janvier, 2007 – 21:41

I love it! Thank Camille. Where did she see it?

Soumis par Neil Adair le 25 Janvier, 2007 – 23:51

Not sure but here’s the link:

http://www.old.mackaycartoons.net/2007/huh2007-01-19.html

This one too!

http://www.old.mackaycartoons.net/2007/huh2007-01-18.html

Soumis par Erich Jacoby-Hawkins le 26 Janvier, 2007 – 03:05

If I didn’t know that was supposed to be EFM, I wouldn’t recognize her. The nose is too long & pointy, the cheeks should be round (not flat). And of course, she should be smiling.

But I suppose the caricaturists will get better with practice. As proof, Harper and Layton are very recognizable above, Dion not so much.

I look forward to ‘seeing’ more of EFM in the cartoons!

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON

p.s. And to recognize us for a non-enviro issue – yay!

Soumis par Brian Smallshaw le 26 Janvier, 2007 – 11:16

Glad to see the cartoonists feel we are a worthy subject, but is the implication here that we stand for poverty? Is it that you have a choice, between an unsustainable, environmentally degraded world, or poverty? Hope not.

Brian Smallshaw
Saanich-Gulf Islands EDA

Soumis par Erich Jacoby-Hawkins le 26 Janvier, 2007 – 14:24

I thought it was pretty clearly expressing that our party is now leading the way on addressing poverty – in a comprehensive, ‘fix for a generation’ style via GAI rather than a patchwork of expensive-to-administrate programs which still leave gaps.

The timing is in relation to the policy conference we just had on that topic in BC last weekend. When was the last time a gray party, even the NDP, had a conference on how to end poverty, rather than just demand more money to expand the programs that don’t work now?

The cartoon says that EFM and the GPC are staying ahead of the grays – we were onto climate change while they ignored it, now we are also on poverty and they’ll have to catch up. We’re ahead of the curve. (Standing on the poverty island does not mean we want or will create poverty any more than standing on the climate change island implies we support climate change – in fact, the opposite).

This is a pretty amazing statement from a political cartoonist – very Green-positive, and in a way we want (breaking out of the one-issue-party meme).

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON

Soumis par Brian Smallshaw le 26 Janvier, 2007 – 15:26

Yes, I thought it should be taken that way; just wondered if anybody might read it wrong.

Brian Smallshaw
Saanich-Gulf Islands EDA

January 6, 2007

Everyday I spend a little time perusing reader feedback, answering questions, and explaining the meanings of my cartoons. I often need to remind the people who complain about my work that I’m in the opinion business, not news relaying, and that it’s expected I rattle the nerves of readers on a frequent basis. Last weekend’s cartoon was designed to just that, and it got a few bites, just as this side of North America was concluding a balmy stretch of unseasonably warm January weather. Here’s one which I’d like to share:

Hi there,

I don’t usually write anyone about anything except your cartoon upset me so much this morning that I can’t finish reading the paper. From what you wrote it seems that you don’t believe in humanity’s role in global warming. This isn’t a natural cycle of the Earth. I think you should educate yourself before you do allude to a “let’s do nothing to stop global warming” approach. Good places to start are “The Weathermakers” by Tim Flannery, David Suzuki’s website, and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” (even if you don’t like Al Gore he has some hard scientific data that I’d love to see someone refute).

So far any scientist that has studied core samples from Antarica state that the Earth has never warmed this quickly before.

You have a lot of power as someone who is seen daily in the news. I wish you’d be more responsible.

Sincerely,
E.B.

Dear E,

Sorry my editorial cartoon upset you but sometimes that’s what an editorial cartoon is supposed to do. At the very least I hope it reminded you that the source of all the recent bizarre weather is not to be blamed solely on increased levels of carbon dioxide and other emissions in the atmosphere. I simply threw out something in cartoon form which challenged all the hype conspired by warm weather, a cabinet shuffle, polls, and recent studies which have put the environment as the flavour of the month. I wasn’t hearing much in the news about El Nino, which science has proven is naturally occuring.

I don’t know where you get any notion of a “let’s do nothing to stop global warming” from me, or in my cartoon. I’m concerned as anyone else about the environment but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to push back and question some of the junk science you’ll find with the presentations from the people you mentioned.

I appreciate your email.

Best Regards,

Graeme MacKay

Sorry, but what do you mean junk science? What’s wrong with how they obtained their results?

Dear E,

Forgive me, but I don’t know if your question to me about “junk science” is rhetorical in nature.

There have been countless articles written refuting some of the statistics and theories used by Al Gore, David Suzuki, and Tim Flannery to back up their arguments, which in essence, create global warming hysteria. A simple search of the Internet will find reputable articles which challenge the approaches based on “junk science”. The overriding fact of the debate is that a causal link between greenhouse gases and global warming has not been proven conclusively.

So to paraphrase a term you used in your initial email to me I think you should educate yourself on the stances of both sides of the global warming debate before you criticize me for an editorial cartoon which reminds people of a scientifically proven naturally occurring phenomena called El Nino. The opinion I conveyed in my cartoon, and that’s what I do in cartooning — express opinion, simply illustrated the hysteria I sensed last week. You can agree or disagree with it, but I doubt we’ll see eye to eye on the issue on global warming, and that’s ok.

Sincerely,

Graeme MacKay
FEEDBACK

Hi Graeme,

I hate to butt in on someone else’s conversation though I do need to set you straight about your comment re: junk science and reputable articles that refute the scientists and communicators warning of climate change. There is NO articles in any peer reviewed scientific journals that deny global warming and its link to climate change. Are those reputable articles you speak of in such journals? Of course you may actually mean that the information Gore, Suzuki and Flannery present is based on Junk Science. I highly doubt it since as Scientists trying to convince the world, it would work against them and also as scientists it would be a sin for them to do so (and against their instincts).

You as a cartoonist are open to do anything you like as your job and intention is to amuse. Climate change is pretty “popular” at the moment and so it is easy to have a dig at it. What is different this time compared to any other ‘fad’ in the past, is that we are facing some serious issues that are only getting worse and worse. George Monbiot (a scientist you didn’t name) has put forward a convincing case that we need to make a 90% cut in greenhouse gases emmisions by 2030. If he is correct then it doesn’t give us much time to fool around and poke fun at the messengers. E.B. is correct that those who have most influence need to take this seriously and do as much as they can now, rather than stirring the pot and making it even more difficult to convince the people of the world that we need to change the way we live.

Regards,

Brooke (January 12, 2007)

—–

Thanks Brooke for your thoughtful contribution. I don’t doubt that what is sent up in the air in the form of pollution does have some impact on global climate. What I read with regard to global warming is that not all scientists are on the same page concerning the issue as you suggest. I think Carl Wunsch from the MIT best sums the debate up by saying, “Denying the risk [from warming] seems utterly stupid. Claiming we can calculate the probabilities with any degree of skill seems equally stupid.”

– Graeme MacKay (January 12, 2007)

—–

Hello Mr. Mackay. When I saw the cartoon, I had a vague uneasiness
about it. Then this morning I read the attached article from people who
are actually doing something about global warming. I found the
following paragraph in that site expressed exactly the uneasiness I had
about your cartoon. The folks at Terrapass had this to say:
—————————————–
Beyond the general wonkery, there is an important point here. It’s
important not to get overly caught up in individual weather events,
because the temperature pendulum is going to swing around quite a bit
even as average temperatures gradually increase due to global warming.
If overly much is made of every warm spell, skeptics are going to play
the same game in reverse, turning every cold snap into another argument
for inaction.
—————————————-
The site above is a great reference on global warming and what to do
about it. You might like to buy a terra pass to offset the global
warming from your own vehicle. 🙂

Be well.

Herman Turkstra (January 18, 2007)

——

I looked around the TerraPass site and I was amazed by some of the landfill swag you can buy — coffee cups, backpacks, t-shirts, even licence plate frames? I think I’ll pass on buying into TerraPass.

I know what you’re saying with regard to your comment about buying into the stuff preached by TerraPass as a means to reduce the greenhouse gases emitted by my editorial cartoons. It’s a nice metaphor and it made me chuckle. But I must confess I’m a bit confused by the message in the article you attached. I’m surprised by it’s wishy-washiness, and quite frankly it came across more as a rant than anything new to add to the climate change debate… kind of like my cartoons, I suppose.

Graeme MacKay (January 18, 2007)

Thursday May 25, 2006

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Thursday May 25, 2006 Ethanol: Viable fuel option or green pipe dream? As rising oil prices have motorists paying a premium at the gas pumps, consumers are beginning to wonder when it will all end, and where the solution lies.The answer could be contained in ethanol, a bio-fuel that the government is increasingly touting as the renewable resource of choice that will also help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The provinces and the federal government recently joined forces and announced a plan to boost the amount of ethanol mixed into all Canadian gasoline to five per cent by 2010, up from the current one per cent requirement. Following a meeting in Regina, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose praised the initiative as an important milestone for Canada, and said the provinces showed a "successful will to move forward" on ethanol benchmarks for gasoline. "It's an ambitious target but we've done a lot of work in the last few months with the energy minister and agriculture minister, and feel very strongly it's a reachable target," Ambrose told CTV's Canada AM. "It's time we think Canada start to play in the new economy, and we give opportunities for our agricultural sector and for Canadians to start participating in this kind of environmental challenge." Source (CTV News) Canada, Environment, Ethanol, Kyoto, protocol, Rona Ambrose, renewable, resource, climate change

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday May 25, 2006

Ethanol: Viable fuel option or green pipe dream?

As rising oil prices have motorists paying a premium at the gas pumps, consumers are beginning to wonder when it will all end, and where the solution lies.The answer could be contained in ethanol, a bio-fuel that the government is increasingly touting as the renewable resource of choice that will also help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The provinces and the federal government recently joined forces and announced a plan to boost the amount of ethanol mixed into all Canadian gasoline to five per cent by 2010, up from the current one per cent requirement.

Following a meeting in Regina, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose praised the initiative as an important milestone for Canada, and said the provinces showed a “successful will to move forward” on ethanol benchmarks for gasoline.

“It’s an ambitious target but we’ve done a lot of work in the last few months with the energy minister and agriculture minister, and feel very strongly it’s a reachable target,” Ambrose told CTV’s Canada AM.

“It’s time we think Canada start to play in the new economy, and we give opportunities for our agricultural sector and for Canadians to start participating in this kind of environmental challenge.” Source (CTV News)

 

Tuesday October 29, 2002

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Tuesday October 29, 2002 Kyoto Quiz Canada is still set to ratify the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming this year, even as its provinces grumble at its terms and insist that they should not foot the bill, Environment Minister David Anderson said on Monday. Speaking at the end of a one-day meeting in a Halifax casino, Anderson acknowledged he did not set the agenda to ratify the treaty, which would oblige Canada to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 6 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. But he said the chance of delay was "highly unlikely," despite complaints from the provinces that a government plan on how Canada will meet the Kyoto targets is short on detail about what ratification will cost and on who needs to act. Prime Minister Jean Chretien says Canada will ratify the treaty by the end of this year, and that it is the federal government, not the provinces, which determines the issue. (Source: Hamilton Spectator) Canada, Alberta, Kyoto, protocol, Ralph Klein, Jean Chretien, environment, climate change, quiz, accord

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday October 29, 2002

Kyoto Quiz

Canada is still set to ratify the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming this year, even as its provinces grumble at its terms and insist that they should not foot the bill, Environment Minister David Anderson said on Monday. Speaking at the end of a one-day meeting in a Halifax casino, Anderson acknowledged he did not set the agenda to ratify the treaty, which would oblige Canada to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 6 percent from 1990 levels by 2012.

But he said the chance of delay was “highly unlikely,” despite complaints from the provinces that a government plan on how Canada will meet the Kyoto targets is short on detail about what ratification will cost and on who needs to act.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien says Canada will ratify the treaty by the end of this year, and that it is the federal government, not the provinces, which determines the issue. (Source: Hamilton Spectator)