global warming

Tuesday April 14, 2015

Tuesday April 14, 2015Editorial cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday April 14, 2015

Premier Kathleen Wynne says it’s time to fight global warming by putting a price on carbon

Cap-and-trade is nothing more than a tax grab, critics say.

But Premier Kathleen Wynne says to do nothing to fight global warming will cost the economy far more.

Thursday, February 26, 2015“Cap-and-trade is a carbon tax by any other name,” Interim Progressive Conservative Leader Jim Wilson shot at the government to kick off question period.

“When businesses pay more, consumers pay more … it’s a tax on everything,” Wilson said.

Wynne said earlier at a news conference Monday that Ontarians are already paying for the effects of climate change in higher insurance premiums, among other things.

“Climate change is not a distant threat … we are talking about something is upon us … it is already imposing costs on the people of Ontario,” she said. “The sooner we get carbon pricing in place the better.”

Wednesday, February 13, 2013The government estimates the 2013 ice storm cost $200 million in insurance payouts, while severe floods in the Greater Toronto Area resulted in nearly $1 billion in damages.

A cap-and-trade system discourages carbon emissions through a complex system of credits. While details were scarce, Wynne did acknowledge that motorists can expect to pay 2.5 to three cents a litre more at the pumps under the proposed plan.

But other than that, the program revealed little on exactly will pay and how consumers can expect to be impacted.

“It would be irresponsible of us to speculate on exactly what the costs are going to be when we haven’t worked to design the mechanism yet,” Wynne said, adding that critics can call it a tax if they want “even though it is misleading.” (Source: Toronto Star)

[slideshow_deploy id=’4298’]

Posted to Yahoo News Canada and iPolitics.

December 12, 2007

Look who’s strutting around and putting down successors and criticizing governments now debating and putting together new agreements on Climate Change and Global Warming… Jean Chretien. The former Prime Minister conveys how proud he is to call his signing on to the Kyoto Protocol as a defining chapter of his Legacy despite the lack of action which followed. It’s all in this article:

TORONTO – What was intended as a feel-good gathering of prominent Liberals celebrating the legacy of one of their most illustrious leaders took a divisive turn Tuesday as Jean Chretien again took aim at his successor Paul Martin’s track record as prime minister, this time for failing to meet Canada’s obligations to stop climate change. The duelling former prime ministers, whose bitter leadership rift seems to have spilled over into their retirement years, were among the Liberal heavyweights headlining the conference lauding Lester B. Pearson’s contributions to global peace, which earned him a Nobel Peace Prize 50 years ago. Chretien’s speech to the conference, hosted by Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae, included harsh words for the Conservatives’ stance on the Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions. “I am not very pleased today to read what people are saying about Canada in Bali at this moment about the environment,” he told the conference. “I think it is an urgent problem and we should have been at the forefront. When we signed Kyoto, we knew very well when I was there what we were doing, and it should have been implemented. But now we will not meet the target because we lost four years.” But outside the hall, Chretien was quick to point the finger at Martin’s government for dropping the ball on Kyoto after he left office. “I don’t know what happened, I was not there,” he said. “I know that I was negotiating with the oil industry, and the oil industry pulled back from the table.” When asked why it took so long for Canada to get somewhere on Kyoto, Chretien replied, “Sometimes, when you lose four years, you lose four years. There’s nothing I can do about it.” But Chretien said he doesn’t blame current Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, who was environment minister under Martin, for the failure to meet Canada’s obligations under Kyoto, an international treaty that Chretien’s government signed 10 years ago. Dion had to cancel his scheduled appearance at the conference to attend an international climate change summit in Bali, Indonesia. Martin, who delivered his speech two hours after Chretien left the building, defended his record on climate change, saying his government’s policy was regarded as “the most comprehensive attack on climate change that we’ve ever seen in Canada.”

Ten years ago papers were hammering Jean Chretien for having contributed nothing to help solve environmental issues. Here’s an example:

Global warming: action or inertia?
Hamilton Spectator Editorial
October, 02 1997
 

Bill Clinton is demonstrating environmental leadership as he tries to rally American public opinion behind a global treaty cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The American president’s willingness to put his prestige on the line stands in contrast to the political inertia shown by the Chretien government on the problem so far. If the Liberals are to achieve their stated goals in reducing the pollutants that are believed to produce artificial global warming, they must give the problem a much higher profile. Clinton can’t be accused of sleepwalking on the difficult, but urgent, greenhouse gas issue. He raised the stakes yesterday by gathering 100 weather forecasters on the White House lawn in support of stronger action to reduce the buildup of fumes and smoke in the Earth’s fragile natural environment. Cynics dismissed the event as a public relations gimmick. But Clinton deserves marks for taking a stand that will almost certainly involve some lifestyle changes for American consumers and economic adjustment. The president faces stiff opposition from powerful politicians, industrialists and union leaders, who are reluctant to act even though the U.S. is a major polluter. America lags behind other countries in pledging itself to targets for carbon dioxide and other pollutants. The U.S. Senate has said it will reject specific greenhouse gas cuts unless they’re matched by targets for developing countries. The U.S. can do much better than that. So can Canada, which has the second-highest per capita greenhouse emission rate among industrialized countries. The Chretien government should be front and centre with a strategy in advance of international negotiations on a treaty in Japan in December. Instead, it’s making no visible attempt to focus attention on the problem, and how to implement realistic, achievable and cost-effective solutions. The government has relied on a voluntary emissions reduction program that hasn’t done the job. The outlook isn’t likely to improve if the debate, such as it is, is dominated by the likes of Alberta Premier Ralph Klein. He maintains that binding emission reduction targets will penalize his province unfairly. Klein appears to oppose even modest reductions. He should be more open to compromise. A failure by all industrial nations to take effective action now runs the major risk of precipitating an future environmental crisis that would require drastic economic and lifestyle changes. Critics of controls cite potential job losses in moving to a more sustainable economy, but they often overlook the potential employment from improving energy efficiency in offices and homes; developing super-efficient, environmentally-friendly cars and trucks; and investing in renewable energy projects. It’s time for the Chretien government to follow Clinton’s lead and come out of the closet with a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Few problems are as pressing as the need to better protect the planet from choking in man-made gases.

Chretien was in his fifth year of office as Prime Minister by time the above editorial was written. It was my first year as a cartoonist when I drew the (rather crude)cartoon below for the October 2, 1997 edition of the paper, for which I chose to draw on the environment, an issue that Chretien was completely unconcerned with at the time:

April 26, 2007

Since October I’ve drawn at least 20 editorial cartoons on the environment. I doubt I matched that number in the 9 years previous to October of 2006. Greenhouse warming, global warming, climate change – these are some of the buzz words of the green revolution that have become a part of our daily lives for the last 6 months. How does last year’s #1 priority issue of health care drop completely drop out of the collective mindset this year? The war on terrorism is so last year, and now we’re planted somewhere within an undefined space of time in which we so resolutely battle whatever is meant by the buzz words I mentioned above. “Go green now, or die”, seems to be the mantra accepted by many as this revolution sweeps the – well, modern industrialized world, I guess. Who knows what they’re thinking in certain third and second world nations where rainforests continue to be clearcut at an alarming rate and toxic waste is being spewed into the air and into the water without any thought of regulation. Really, do people here think that by signing onto the Kyoto Accord, China, India, and a number of environmentally comatose regimes in Africa, Asia, and South America, are going to be shamed into signing on for the good of the planet?

An interesting government report was leaked to the Toronto Star which identified three groups of Canadians said to be susceptible to changing their actions to improve the environment:

  • The “Suzuki Nation,” making up one-fifth of the population, finds the negative state of the environment in conflict with their values, expresses high environmental concern and is motivated to take action. These are people who would be compelled to act even without offers of tax cuts and other economic incentives designed to change individual behaviour.
  • “Invested Materialists” are the 28 per cent of people who do not find the current environmental state in conflict with their values and have low levels of concern. But these people will “act if given the right reason” such as an economic incentive or enhanced social prestige.
  • The last category is “Ambivalent Materialists” the 15 per cent of Canadians who feel that a polluted environment is in conflict with their values, but are not concerned about current pollution levels.

Do you know which group you belong to? I think you could add a group above the Suzuki Nation who’ll never be satisfied with any government green plan unless a total ban is imposed on all fossil fuels. In fact, I think some people will never be happy until everyone, including John Baird and Stephen Harper, are forced to go back to nature wearing fig leaves on their naughty bits.

I’d like to suggest another group might be added to the ones above. One representing people who feel the current environmental state is in conflict with their values but understand that the economic sacrifices necessary to meet the Kyoto targets are too great considering barely a dent will be made in reducing global greenhouse gases.

I’d put myself in this last group and to paraphrase a well meaning slogan “think globally, and act locally”, I’d like to see ‘locally’ replaced with ‘continentally’. I think many more strides can be made if Canada, the U.S., and Mexico worked together to cap carbon and sulphur dioxide emissions and effectively monitor what’s being sent into our shared atmosphere. It would probably mean a new administration in the White House, but I think there could be real results other than the all-talk-no-action fantasy that is the Kyoto Accord.

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)