emissions – mackaycartoons

Friday June 6, 2025

June 6, 2025 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday June 6, 2025

Also printed in the Toronto Star. Published on Reddit.

Doug Ford’s Bill 17 – Yet Another Step Backwards for Ontario’s Future

May 29 2025

Doug Ford is at it again, pushing through Bill 17, the “Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act,” with the same disregard for environmental protections that characterized his earlier attempts to dismantle the Greenbelt. Ford seems unfazed by previous voter backlash, perhaps feeling invincible with a third majority government—never mind that it was supported by less than half of the voting populace. It seems apathy has its price, and in this case, it’s a mediocre government that prioritizes quick wins over genuine progress.

Bill 17 epitomizes Ford’s governance style: quick fixes, shortcuts, and a focus on appeasing developers and well-connected allies at the expense of everyday Ontarians. By overriding local green building standards, this bill undermines cities like Toronto and Hamilton, which have been proactive in setting their own climate benchmarks. This disregard for local needs could lead to higher emissions and weaker climate defences in new developments.

Analysis: Ford government moves to override cities on green building standards

November 13, 2020

Adding insult to injury, Bill 5 complements this approach by cutting Indigenous communities out of the consultation process. Ford’s administration seems to have little interest in meaningful engagement, opting instead for expediency over respecting Indigenous rights and fostering true reconciliation.

This isn’t Ford’s first run-in with environmental neglect. His track record includes cancelling the Green Energy Act and the cap-and-trade program, decisions that not only forfeited potential revenue but also missed opportunities for sustainable job creation. Ford’s approach mirrors a wider trend where governments, both in Canada and the U.S., are rolling back environmental protections. Ottawa’s recent rollback of the carbon tax/rebate program is yet another example of this troubling regression.

October 31, 2023

In Ontario, Ford’s frequent use of Ministerial Zoning Orders (MZOs) to fast-track development without public debate only further underscores his disdain for democratic processes. This tactic creates a shadowy parallel bureaucracy that lacks transparency and accountability.

The path Ford has chosen is one that turns back the clock on conservation and trivializes the impacts of climate change. It disenfranchises communities striving for sustainable growth. As Ontarians, we must demand better from our leaders. We deserve a government that values comprehensive reforms, respects environmental protections, and champions a sustainable future. Doug Ford’s Bill 17 and Bill 5 are steps in the wrong direction, and it’s crucial for the people of Ontario to demand more thoughtful and planet-focused policies.

Ford’s Familiar Tune

Here I am again, feeling like a broken record, lamenting yet another one of Doug Ford’s government’s anti-environmental moves. It seems like this is what we signed up for when less than half of the voting public handed him a third majority government. Sure, Ford played the Captain Canada role brilliantly, taking a strong stand against Trump earlier this year, and his dramatic flair continues to win him applause. But beneath that performative exterior, we’re stuck with the reality of what the next few years are likely to look like.

Ironically, Ford’s approach mirrors a “Trumpy” disregard for genuine consultation and environmental responsibility. It’s full steam ahead for his developer pals and provincial power brokers, with little concern for the impact on our planet. It’s almost amusing—almost—how he can be hailed as a brave critic of the U.S. President while simultaneously mirroring that same President’s approach when it comes to ignoring the climate crisis. It’s a frustrating echo, and one that I fear we’ll be hearing more of in the years to come.

Posted to Substack: Superhero of Developers. Please subscribe. It’s free!

Tuesday April 15, 2025

April 15, 2025 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday April 15, 2025

Climate Change Takes a Backseat in Canada’s 2025 Election

March 19, 2025

As Canadians head to the polls in 2025, the pressing issue of climate change seems to have been relegated to a whisper amidst the cacophony of economic concerns, tariffs, and geopolitical tensions. The two major parties, the Poilievre Conservatives and the Carney Liberals, have conspicuously sidestepped the climate crisis in their campaigns, raising critical questions about their commitment to addressing what remains one of the most urgent challenges of our time.

Analysis: Election 2025: a voter’s guide to carbon taxes, natural resources and other key environment issues in Canada

In recent elections, climate change was at the forefront, with parties vying to present credible plans to reduce emissions and transition to a sustainable future. However, today, the political landscape has shifted dramatically. According to Vote Compass data, environmental issues have plummeted in voter priority, eclipsed by immediate economic pressures and Canada-U.S. relations. Yet, the urgency of the climate crisis has not diminished; it is merely overshadowed.

September 25, 2024

The Conservatives’ Concerning Silence: Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives have adopted a strategy that sidesteps comprehensive climate policy. By framing climate change as a “global problem” and proposing Canadian LNG exports as a solution to reduce global coal usage, Poilievre avoids committing to domestic emissions targets. This absence of a solid, actionable plan is concerning and unacceptable. While economic growth and job creation are vital, they cannot come at the expense of ignoring a crisis that demands immediate and sustained action.

News: Climate change fades as a campaign issue as tariffs dominate federal election

October 10, 2024

The Liberals’ Temporary Retreat: On the other side, Mark Carney’s Liberals have made a strategic retreat by eliminating the consumer carbon price. This move, influenced by public dissatisfaction and economic pressures, might be seen as a temporary concession—a pragmatic pause rather than a permanent shift. For those concerned about climate change, this decision is a double-edged sword: it alleviates immediate economic burdens but risks undermining long-term climate goals.

The hope remains that this pause is just that—temporary. The Liberals must return to the table with a robust communications strategy, one that clearly articulates the benefits of carbon pricing and other climate policies. The Trudeau Liberals’ rollout of the carbon tax was fraught with challenges, allowing the Poilievre Conservatives to hijack the narrative and cast it as a burden rather than a necessary step towards sustainability.

Analysis: In 2021, there was nearly a consensus on climate change. In 2025, Carney and Poilievre are far apart

March 14, 2024

A Call for Courage and Clarity: The reluctance of both parties to address climate change head-on is a disservice to Canadians and future generations. While other issues understandably demand attention, the climate crisis cannot be perpetually postponed. It requires bold leadership and a commitment to transparent, effective policies that balance economic growth with environmental stewardship.

The 2025 election should have been an opportunity to strengthen Canada’s resolve in fighting climate change, not a retreat into the shadows of political convenience. As voters, we must demand more from our leaders—a clear, unwavering commitment to a sustainable future. The time for silence is over; the climate cannot wait.

The Illusion that Climate Change is a Non-Issue – This cartoon is bound to ruffle feathers among both Liberal and Conservative partisans. Yet, as I’ve stated before and will reiterate, my allegiance is to truth, not to any political party. Editorial cartoonists should be impartial, challenging all sides equally. Our purpose is to provoke thought, which naturally may offend those with entrenched political loyalties.

Supporters of Pierre Poilievre might argue against the depiction of him as a climate denier, while Liberals may question why their leader is depicted alongside him. However, both leaders share a stance against the carbon tax. The previous government under Justin Trudeau introduced a well-intentioned tax and rebate scheme aimed at taxing the largest consumer polluters—those with multiple cars, properties, and frequent travel habits—while benefiting the environmentally conscious and less affluent citizens. Unfortunately, Trudeau failed to effectively communicate the policy’s benefits, allowing Poilievre to exploit this communication gap and rally against it.

The consumer carbon pricing scheme, a key tool for meeting Canada’s Paris Agreement commitments, now teeters on the brink of extinction. Mark Carney, in an unexpected move, completed Poilievre’s “Axe the Tax” campaign, dismantling a program that had potential for significant environmental impact.

If Poilievre assumes office, the illusion of his environmental concern will dissipate, aligning with climate-denying regimes. Conversely, if Carney takes the helm, there’s a glimmer of hope for reintroducing consumer carbon taxes, though he remains reticent about his plans, and his supporters remain uncurious.

We find ourselves in a precarious position, seemingly ignoring the gravity of climate change, influenced by misinformation and rhetoric from a conservative leader who dismisses the climate crisis. Drill baby drill, is the mantra of Conservatives, a familiar refrain to was is heard in the south – yes the fossil fuel sector is important especially in light of tariff turmoil, but it is imperative that we remain vigilant, demanding transparency and action to safeguard our planet’s future.

Master illusionists of Environmental Policies – April 15, 2025: https://youtu.be/4wuAP1x6RMY

– The Graeme Gallery

Read on Substack

Friday October 11, 2019

October 18, 2019 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday October 11, 2019

Liberal climate plan offers the most hope

The critics who claim this federal election is devoid of big issues have got it wrong.

The challenge of fighting climate change stands out like a mountain that rises above a noisy, crowded plain.

On Election Day, the opportunity is here for this country to move up that mountain as never before, just when the calls for action around the world have reached a crescendo and as scientists warn time’s running out to avert an eventual catastrophe.

Fully aware of this, the main four national parties are all offering an action plan. But while each has its merits, after weighing the pros and cons of each party’s proposals, this newspaper believes the Liberals’ strategy is the most substantial, balanced and workable.

April 11, 2018

Despite what some well-meaning ideologues insist, Canada cannot meet its carbon emission targets — far less the utopian dream of no net emissions — overnight or in a few years. Not unless it wants to shut down its fossil-fuel-dependent economy, which no government would ever do.

The Liberals realize this and are trying to marry environmental necessity and economic reality. The policies they’ve enacted over the past four years are on track to taking Canada more than halfway toward meeting its Paris Agreement commitment. That would see this country reduce its carbon emissions in 2030 by a full third from what they were in 2005.

So far, the Liberals have imposed a carbon tax on provinces, such as Ontario, which have not put a price on carbon emissions. Implemented in April at $20 a tonne — about 4.3 cents a litre of gas at the pump — the tax will rise to $50 a tonne by 2022 and possibly more after that. If re-elected, the Liberals would also regulate the carbon content in fuels.

May 14, 2019

In sharp contrast, the Conservatives would axe the carbon tax, ignoring the fact that because most Canadians receive more in a carbon-tax rebate than they pay out, their pockets are not being picked even as they’re being encouraged to change their energy-consumption habits. The Conservatives’ approach also flies in the face of what most economists have long agreed: pricing carbon works from every perspective.

The Conservative plan to invest more in green technology and force large companies to spend more on such solutions if they fail to meet new emission standards would take Canada into unknown territory. It’s impossible to say how much emissions would fall under these initiatives or if they’d fall at all.

September 18, 2019

For their part, the New Democrats would keep the carbon tax while cancelling the rebates to millionaires. The party would also aim for a more ambitious emissions reduction — 38 per cent below 2005 levels — by 2030. Persuasive details for how this would happen, unfortunately, seem lacking.

As for the Green party’s commitment to even higher carbon taxes, more aggressive reductions in emissions and an end to the expansion of all pipelines including the Trans Mountain project, it ignores the serious economic fallout it would surely create.

The Liberals’ plan is far from perfect and, indeed, is still a work in progress. But while they’ve been criticized for buying the Trans Mountain pipeline and trying to expand it, the Liberals realize the race to stop climate change will be more like an ultra marathon than a 100-metre dash.

Canada needs to be in this for the long haul. And it must be economically healthy enough to keep running. Better than their rivals, the Liberals realize these truths and, on this issue at least, have the best plan. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

Thursday April 5, 2018

April 4, 2018 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday April 5, 2018

Rolling back vehicle emission standards in U.S. will affect Canada

March 8, 2017

Canada will have to decide what to do in light of the U.S. decision to ease emissions standards for cars and trucks. In 2014, Canada and the United States jointly adopted rules to radically increase fuel efficiency of the vehicles destined to be sold between 2022 and 2025.

On April 2, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said a timeline that was put in place by the previous Obama administration set standards too high and it will be changed. At the same time, the state of California has the right and is expected to keep to the tougher standards.

November 23, 2016

This will oblige the Canadian government to decide which stand to take. Looser standards would make it more difficult for both countries to meet commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as promised in the 2015 Paris Agreement to fight climate change. But they would reduce the need for car makers to produce more electric vehicles easing pressure on them.

Canada’s environment minister has in the past said that reducing gasoline consumption is a key element in efforts to reduce this country’s emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by the year 2030. (Source: CBC News)

Published in the Welland Tribune

SaveSave

Wednesday September 23, 2015

September 22, 2015 by Graeme MacKay

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday September 23, 2015

This is the refugee debate we ought to be having

Dieter Zetsche surprised attendees of the Frankfurt auto show recently when he interrupted a presentation to opine on the 800,000 Syrian refugees that are expected to flood into Germany this year. The mustachioed chairman of Daimler AG, which makes Mercedes luxury cars, suggested the influx of asylum seekers could “help foster another economic miracle” by offsetting the challenges posed by the country’s rapidly aging population. Zetsche went on to say the carmaker would help pay for housing for migrants in Stuttgart, while rival Volkswagen, not to be outdone, said it would find them trainee jobs.

In Canada, by contrast, politicians have failed to draw a similar link between accepting large numbers of Syrian refugees and the potential for future economic growth, despite being in the midst of a federal election where economic matters are said to be top of mind among voters.

Instead, the debate is focused narrowly on the need to balance humanitarian assistance with national security concerns—not that the number being talked about would have much of an economic impact anyway. The Harper government’s promise to take another look at its policy, following significant public outcry, only resulted in a commitment to speed up by 15 months the resettlement of 10,000 Syrians, not accept more of them. Meanwhile, Tom Mulcair’s NDP has proposed bringing 10,000 refugees into the country by the end of this year, while Justin Trudeau’s Liberals have promised to bring in 25,000 by January.

It all raises an obvious question: Are we not only missing out on the chance to help those in desperate need, but a historic economic opportunity, too? (Continued: MacLeans)