environment

Saturday April 24, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday April 24, 2021

Trudeau pressured to adopt tougher emissions target for Biden climate summit

September 28, 2019

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is under pressure to step up his commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions in Canada within the next decade as he heads into a United States-hosted climate summit with global leaders.

The virtual two-day event starting Thursday, which is Earth Day, is where the government says Trudeau plans to unveil new reduction targets for 2030.

The Liberal government has promised to release new targets ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference this fall, when Canada plans to discuss progress on the issue.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is under pressure to step up his commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions in Canada within the next decade as he heads into a United States-hosted climate summit with global leaders.

April 22, 2020

The virtual two-day event starting Thursday, which is Earth Day, is where the government says Trudeau plans to unveil new reduction targets for 2030.

The Liberal government has promised to release new targets ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference this fall, when Canada plans to discuss progress on the issue.

Some organizations say to show it’s serious, Canada needs to set a reductions target of at least 50 per cent below 2005 levels, with at least one saying nothing less than 40 per cent.

Another factor is pressure from allies, like U.S. President Joe Biden, who has prioritized fighting climate change with billions in new spending.

January 26, 2021

Groups have been pushing Biden to adopt a target of slashing emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 below 2005 levels. More than 300 companies signed an open letter supporting that call, such as giants like Apple, Starbucks and McDonalds.

And some suggest Trudeau will at the very least be expected to match.

“There is no way they can go to Washington with 36 per cent and not get laughed out of the room,” said Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, among environmentalists saying it needs to be higher, like 60 per cent.

Among those who believe the floor needs to be 50 per cent is Mary Robinson, chair of the international human rights group The Elders, and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The former Ireland president believes there’s a perception Canada has accomplished more on fighting climate change than it actually has.

“Canada’s the only G7 country where emissions have increased since the signing of the Paris Agreement.”

A recent report shows in 2019 the country’s annual emissions increased slightly to 730 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and its equivalents, closer to where it was in 2005 than its 2030 promise. (CTV) 

 

Tuesday March 23, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday March 23, 2021

O’Toole’s pitch to get Conservatives to embrace ‘change’ may be off to a shaky start

Erin O’Toole told Conservatives this weekend that their party must change — because if it doesn’t, he said, it won’t be able to win the votes necessary to defeat Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in the next election.

May 2, 2019

And if the Liberals do win, he added, they’ll be able to implement their own changes — changes that O’Toole cast as frightening and potentially ruinous.

But O’Toole didn’t tell Conservatives exactly how they need to change. And then delegates delivered a potentially damaging vote on climate change policy that suggests his party base might not be ready to move very far.

O’Toole is on solid ground when he says the Conservative Party needs to try something different. His own polling numbers make that obvious. But so did the last federal election.

In 2019, Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives ran on an implicit promise to return to the policy agenda of Stephen Harper’s government. Scheer promised to smile more than his predecessor did but stopped short of offering a new approach — particularly on climate change.

June 23, 2020

The Conservatives won 34 per cent of the popular vote in that election. That was two points better than the party’s performance under Harper in 2015, but its national result in 2019 was inflated by the massive Conservative turnout in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In Ontario and Quebec — where 199 of the country’s 338 ridings are located — the Conservatives actually lost ground under Scheer.

A year and a half later, O’Toole’s Conservatives are sitting at 30 per cent nationally. And O’Toole’s personal approval rating might be even more of a problem.

August 25, 2020

According to survey results released by Abacus Data last week, 23 per cent of Canadians are committed to voting Conservative in the next election and another 23 per cent would consider voting Conservative.

But as the Abacus numbers point out, the differences between those two groups are substantial. Compared to those who have decided already to vote for O’Toole’s party, those potential Conservative voters are younger, more diverse, much more concerned about climate change and much less angry about Justin Trudeau.

September 1, 2020

O’Toole said his party must have a “serious” and “comprehensive” plan for climate change. But he doubled down on his criticism of the current federal carbon price and fell back on a framing that casts “the environment” as a discrete issue — as opposed to a broader view that sees climate policy as intertwined with almost all other areas of public policy.

“As important as climate change is, getting our economy back on track is more important,” he said.

In his prepared remarks, he said he wanted to defeat the “lie” that the Conservative Party is a party of “climate change deniers.” On Friday night and then again during a question-and-answer session with party members on Saturday afternoon, O’Toole declared that the “debate” over climate change is over.

But in between those two pronouncements came the news that Conservative delegates had rejected a resolution that would have declared that “climate change is real” and “the Conservative party is willing to act” — while committing the party to targeting high emitters and supporting innovation.

The headlines generated by that vote might be a serious setback to O’Toole’s goal of rebranding his party. Liberals will no doubt be happy to remind him of that vote at every opportunity in the weeks and months ahead. (CBC)

Sketch of being pulled back from the big kids’ pool

 

Thursday December 10, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday December 10, 2020

Doug Ford takes an axe to greenbelt protections

First, Doug Ford big-footed environmental protections and local authority. Then he went home early, adjourning the legislature until February. Not a bad day’s work for Ford and friends.

November 13, 2020

Under the cover of COVID-19, the government is hacking and slashing the network of regulations and oversight that for years helped balance the preservation of Ontario’s environment with the interests of voracious development.

Think back to before Ford became leader of the not-progressive conservative party. He was recorded telling a roomful of his development industry friends that he would ensure Ontario’s cherished greenbelt would be opened to allow development.

In case you’ve forgotten, the outcry was immediate and very loud. So much so that Ford had to publicly retract his pledge, and reassure Ontarians that he would respect their will on the greenbelt.

But Ford never said he wouldn’t use a back door to accomplish the same objectives. This week, he demonstrated that he has done exactly that.

May 3, 2018

Schedule 6 may sound innocuous, but it is anything but. Passed this week as part of the government’s Bill 229 — a pandemic recovery bill for heaven’s sake — it neuters all of Ontario’s conservation authorities. Their mandate is now dramatically narrower, and a government minister will have the power to veto conservation authority decisions. 

Ontarians have been able to rely on conservation authorities for years to effectively manage and protect rivers, tributaries, wetlands, forests and local drinking water. CAs are not perfect, but they generally work, and they represent local and regional interests. No longer. 

In another alarming change, the Conservation Authorities Act has been amended to allow the provincial minister complete control over issuing permits, with or without input from CAs. And there is no appealing the decisions.

December 11, 2018

Not satisfied with hobbling conservation authorities, the government is also making increased use of Ministerial Zoning Orders. MZOs allow the provincial minister to override planning and zoning decisions, regardless of local government or public input. Again, the decisions cannot be appealed.

This destruction of local control has not gone unnoticed. Conservation authorities, mayors, the Association of Ontario Municipalities, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the World Wildlife Fund (Canada), Ontario Nature and Environmental Defence of Ontario have all spoken out strongly against the government’s centralization of control. Countless letters to the editor, columns and editorials have condemned the changes.

The government’s response was to double down and push the changes through, hidden deep in pandemic recovery omnibus legislation. 

All this is part of a disturbing big picture. Remember the Ontario Municipal Board, which provided a flawed method of appealing local planning decisions? The government replaced it with the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT) a developer-friendly organization that almost always rules on the side of unfettered development.

Then came MZOs, being used increasingly to authorize zoning and planning changes in the absence of local due process and input. Then came the gutting of conservation areas, with their crucial oversight, including of Ontario’s drinking water.

Does anyone else see a theme here? Ever since Doug Ford blew up Toronto city council to suit his personal whims, it has been clear he is not remotely interested in local decision-making authority. He wants Ontario open for business, regardless of environmental impact. And he’s getting his wish. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Friday November 13, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 13, 2020

Don’t give free rein to Ontario’s developers

Doug Ford is moving quickly but quietly to give Ontario’s developers the upper hand over Ontario’s environment.

November 22, 2019

For proof of this ominous change, check out how Premier Ford’s provincial government is stripping away the powers of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities when it comes to approving new development in many of the province’s most vital natural areas.

Since mid-20th century, conservation authorities have been responsible not only for controlling floods but for protecting and restoring the land, water and natural habitats in this province. They’ve done a superb job, too, even if many developers consider them nothing more than red tape that slows or stops a money-making venture.

But in defiance of this long-held mandate, the Progressive Conservatives last week unveiled legislation that would curtail the conservation authorities’ ability to act as environmental guardians. And as if it was hoping the public wouldn’t notice what it was doing, the government slipped its proposals into its fat, omnibus budget bill.

The public, however, should take notice. What we’re witnessing is a direct threat to responsible environmental and land-use planning.

The new legislation would end the conservation authorities’ role in offering an informed response to development applications and how those applications might impact sensitive natural environments. More power to decide the fate of a proposed development, however controversial, would be handed to the provincial Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

If, where it still had jurisdiction, a conservation authority refused to issue a permit or imposed conditions for a development, a disgruntled developer could appeal directly to the natural resources minister or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Until now, someone appealing a permit denial would have to go directly to the local conservation authority’s executive.

December 11, 2018

What the Ford government is doing is politicizing environmental and land-use planning. At the very least, its proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act raise the possibility a developer with a friend in government could one day win approval for a project over well-founded, local opposition.

This shouldn’t happen but the government intends to go even further. The province doesn’t want watershed management and conservation to remain core conservation authority programs, for which municipalities would have to pay. Instead, they would become voluntary programs a municipality could choose to support — or not. 

The Ford government seems to have a grudge against conservation authorities. Last year, it slashed its funding for the authorities by 50 per cent while telling them flood control must become their core mandate. Those shrunken budgets have made it harder for conservation authorities to plant trees, restore forests, and prevent soil erosion and water pollution, all jobs that make for a healthier environment.

May 3, 2018

If the new legislation passes, Ontario’s river valleys, flood plains, wetlands, Great Lakes shorelines — indeed, its water supplies — would be vulnerable to degradation in even more ways. It is also worth noting that the same government is increasingly resorting to ministerial zoning orders which allow it to permit development while bypassing the municipal planning process, environmental assessments and meaningful public consultation.

If Ford truly believes the current process for approving development is too cumbersome, he could streamline the rules, perhaps even imposing tighter deadlines for municipal governments and conservation authorities to respond to a project proposal.

But the interests of the economy, development and money have to be balanced with the interests of our environment. And where they can’t, the interests of the environment should prevail. Ontario should, as the song says, be “a place to grow.” But it should be place to grow for healthy environments, not just developers’ bank accounts. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

Reddit: The MacKay political cartoon in today’s Hamilton Spectator couldn’t be better

Friday October 16, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday October 16, 2020

Make Canada’s electric vehicle bet pay off

The federal and Ontario governments have just rolled the dice — using taxpayers’ money — in hopes of hitting it big in the electric vehicle industry.

November 22, 2019

After anteing up $295 million apiece, they recently convinced Ford Motor Co. of Canada to commit about $1.4 billion of its own money to start manufacturing these zero-emission machines and the batteries that power them at its Oakville plant by 2025. 

It’s a smart, and admirably non-partisan, gamble on the part of these governments that could preserve thousands of Canadian auto-sector jobs and grow the economy while doing something just as important — fighting climate change.

But if they want this steep, $590-million bet to pay off, they have to do more than just put up money. It’s not as easy as saying if you build it they’ll buy it. 

While there are plenty of hybrid and fully electric vehicles on the market, only about 0.5 per cent of the 23 million passenger vehicles on Canadian roads are electric. There are strong reasons more Canadians haven’t leapt behind the wheel of an EV, reasons Ottawa and Queen’s Park need to address.

October 3, 2020

For starters, electric vehicles are generally more expensive to buy than the ones driven by the internal combustion engines that are doing so much to heat up this planet. When it comes to range, most EVs can’t travel nearly as far on a full-charge as their gasoline-driven rivals on a full tank, though the gap is decreasing. And the number of electric recharging stations is pitifully small — just a fraction of the number of gas stations out there.

These negatives shouldn’t make anyone a naysayer about the future of Canada’s electric car and battery industry. It is, in fact, visionary for our nation to embrace what will surely be the technology of the future. Unfortunately there are no givens in the global auto sector and too often good intentions on the parts of governments and even industrial gurus don’t pan out. 

February 27, 2020

Canada badly lags behind other countries, such the United States, Germany, Japan and especially China in making EVs. When the current federal Liberal government asked every single EV manufacturer in the world to move to Canada, the answer was consistently no.

But there’s an upside to the fact that Ford Motor’s first zero-emission vehicles won’t roll of the line in Oakville for another five years. That gives the federal and Ontario governments a half decade to ensure their — your — investment ultimately pays off.

Canada needs recharge stations, lots of them. Establishing and paying for more of this essential infrastructure should be part of the federal Liberals’ plan for rebuilding post-pandemic Canada. 

Perhaps they could partner with existing gas stations. If their owners give the matter some thought they’ll realize they, too, have a stake in transitioning away from petroleum-based fuels.

Programs could be established or beefed up across the country to help homeowners as well as condo and apartment complexes, to install their own recharging facilities. In addition, the federal government should review its current rebate program for people buying electric vehicles to determine if it’s working and even if it should be enhanced.

Finally, attention must also be paid to the Canadian mining companies that produce the minerals, such as cobalt, nickel and lithium, that will go into the electric vehicle batteries. Do they require help in meeting what could be a significant new demand?

When it comes to electric vehicles, Ottawa and Queen’s Park may feel that, as Ford Motor once proclaimed, they have “a better idea.” They need to back it up. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)