profit

Tuesday June 21, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday June 21, 2022

Freeland defends budget after Scotiabank accuses feds of ‘doing nothing’ on inflation

A cut in planned government spending could help tame rampant inflation and reduce pressure on the Bank of Canada to hike interest rates, according to a report from Scotiabank.

June 17, 2022

The report from the bank’s chief economist Jean-Francois Perrault and modelling director René Lalonde claims that Canadian fiscal policymakers are “doing nothing of any significance to slow inflation at the moment.”

The authors argue that cutting government spending will take some of the burden to cool inflation off of the Bank of Canada and the private sector.

Scotiabank’s analysis came as Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland is met with the head of the U.S. Treasury Janet Yellen in Toronto on Monday to discuss cooperation between the nations and the global inflation concerns.

Friday November 19, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, (Not published in The Hamilton Spectator) – Friday November 19, 2021

Capitalism is killing the planet

There is a myth about human beings that withstands all evidence. It’s that we always put our survival first. This is true of other species. When confronted by an impending threat, such as winter, they invest great resources into avoiding or withstanding it: migrating or hibernating, for example. Humans are a different matter.

4 Waves Cartoon

When faced with an impending or chronic threat, such as climate or ecological breakdown, we seem to go out of our way to compromise our survival. We convince ourselves that it’s not so serious, or even that it isn’t happening. We double down on destruction, swapping our ordinary cars for SUVs, jetting to Oblivia on a long-haul flight, burning it all up in a final frenzy. In the back of our minds, there’s a voice whispering, “If it were really so serious, someone would stop us.” If we attend to these issues at all, we do so in ways that are petty, tokenistic, comically ill-matched to the scale of our predicament. It is impossible to discern, in our response to what we know, the primacy of our survival instinct.

Here is what we know. We know that our lives are entirely dependent on complex natural systems: the atmosphere, ocean currents, the soil, the planet’s webs of life. People who study complex systems have discovered that they behave in consistent ways. It doesn’t matter whether the system is a banking network, a nation state, a rainforest or an Antarctic ice shelf; its behaviour follows certain mathematical rules. In normal conditions, the system regulates itself, maintaining a state of equilibrium. It can absorb stress up to a certain point. But then it suddenly flips. It passes a tipping point, then falls into a new state of equilibrium, which is often impossible to reverse.

Human civilisation relies on current equilibrium states. But, all over the world, crucial systems appear to be approaching their tipping points. If one system crashes, it is likely to drag others down, triggering a cascade of chaos known as systemic environmental collapse. This is what happened during previous mass extinctions. (Continued: The Guardian) 

November 19, 2021

Atmospheric rivers of the kind that flooded British Columbia and renched California in recent weeks will become larger — and possibly more destructive — because of climate change, scientists said.

Columns in the atmosphere hundreds of miles long carry water vapour over oceans from the tropics to more temperate regions in amounts more than double the flow of the Amazon River, according to the American Meteorological Society.

These “rivers in the sky” are relatively common, with about 11 present on Earth at any time, according to NASA.

But warming air and seas around the globe causes conditions that scientists said will make them hold more moisture, causing extreme precipitation when they make landfall, often on the west coasts of North America, South America and Western Europe.

Because of climate change, atmospheric rivers are projected to become slightly less frequent, but more intense, according to a 2018 study led by researchers from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

“There may be fewer, but they are going to be lasting longer, and more intense,” Vicky Espinoza, an author of the NASA study who is now a graduate student at the University of California Merced, said.

Atmospheric rivers will become about 10% less frequent by the end of this century, but about 25% longer and wider, the study found. That will lead to nearly double the frequency of the most intense atmospheric river storms. (Continued: CTV) 

 

Friday February 19, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday February 19, 2021

Texas, Land of Wind and Lies

Politicians are neither gods nor saints. Because they aren’t gods, they often make bad policy decisions. Because they aren’t saints, they often try to evade responsibility for their failures, asserting either that they did as well as anyone could have or that someone else deserves the blame.

October 3, 2014

For a while, then, the politics surrounding the power outages that have spread across Texas looked fairly normal. True, the state’s leaders pursued reckless policies that set the stage for catastrophe, then tried to evade responsibility. But while their behavior was reprehensible, it was reprehensible in ways we’ve seen many times over the years.

However, that changed around a day after the severity of the disaster became apparent. Republican politicians and right-wing media, not content with run-of-the-mill blame-shifting, have coalesced around a malicious falsehood instead — the claim that wind and solar power caused the collapse of the Texas power grid, and that radical environmentalists are somehow responsible for the fact that millions of people are freezing in the dark, even though conservative Republicans have run the state for a generation.

This isn’t normal political malfeasance. It’s the energy-policy equivalent of claiming that the Jan. 6 insurrection was a false-flag Antifa operation — raw denial of reality, not just to escape accountability, but to demonize one’s opponents. And it’s another indicator of the moral and intellectual collapse of American conservatism.

The underlying story of what happened in Texas appears to be fairly clear. Like many states, Texas has a partly deregulated electricity market, but deregulation has gone further there than elsewhere. In particular, unlike other states, Texas chose not to provide power companies with incentives to install reserve capacity to deal with possible emergencies. This made power cheaper in normal times, but left the system vulnerable when things went wrong.

Texas authorities also ignored warnings about the risks associated with extreme cold. After a 2011 cold snap left millions of Texans in the dark, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission urged the state to winterize its power plants with insulation, heat pipes and other measures. But Texas, which has deliberately cut its power grid off from the rest of the country precisely to exempt itself from federal regulation, only partially implemented the recommendations.

And the deep freeze came.

January 31, 2019

A power grid poorly prepared to deal with extreme cold suffered multiple points of failure. The biggest problems appear to have come in the delivery of natural gas, which normally supplies most of the state’s winter electricity, as wellheads and pipelines froze. Nor was this merely a matter of the lights going out; people are freezing too, because many Texas homes have electric heat. Many of the homes without electrical heat rely on, yes, natural gas. We’re looking at enormous suffering and, probably, a significant death toll.

So Texas is experiencing a natural disaster made significantly worse by major policy errors — and the officials who made those errors should be held accountable.

Instead of accepting responsibility, however, officials from Gov. Greg Abbott on down, backed by virtually the entire right-wing media complex, have chosen to lay the blame on green energy, especially wind power.

November 29, 2018

Now, it’s true that the state generates a lot of electricity from wind, although it’s a small fraction of the total. But that’s not because Texas — Texas! — is run by environmental crazies. It’s because these days wind turbines are a cost-effective energy sourcewherever there’s a lot of wind, and one thing Texas has is a lot of wind.

It’s also true that extreme cold forced some of the state’s insufficiently winterized wind turbines to shut down, but as I said, this was happening to Texas energy sources across the board, with the worst problems involving natural gas.

Why, then, the all-out effort to falsely place the blame on wind power?

The incentives are obvious. Attacking wind power is a way for both elected officials and free-market ideologues to dodge responsibility for botched deregulation; it’s a way to please fossil fuel interests, which give the vast bulk of their political contributions to Republicans; and since progressives tend to favor renewable energy, it’s a way to own the libs. And it all dovetails with climate change denial.

But why do they think they can get away with such an obvious lie? The answer, surely, is that those peddling the lie know that they’re operating in a post-truth political landscape. When two-thirds of Republicans believe that Antifa was involved in the assault on the Capitol, selling the base a bogus narrative about the Texas electricity disaster is practically child’s play.

And if you’re expecting any change in the policies that helped cause this disaster, don’t count on it — at least as long as Texas remains Republican. Given everything else we’ve seen, the best bet is that demonization of wind power, not a realistic understanding of what actually happened, will rule policy going forward. (New York Times) 

 

Thursday November 12, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday November 12, 2020

Doug Ford downloads hardest pandemic decision-making

Being a medical officer of health in an Ontario town or city has always been a big, challenging job. Being the MOH during a pandemic like this one is exponentially harder. Add in being the default decision-maker about what businesses can stay open and which must close, and you’ve got a job not for the faint of heart.

October 28, 2020

That is where Ontario’s medical officers find themselves today, with the provincial government apparently opting for a minimalist approach on pandemic policy at the very time when COVID-19 is spreading dramatically. At this rate, it will soon be out of control. It may already be.

On Wednesday, for the fourth time in five days, Ontario set a record reporting 1,426 new cases. The seven-day average stands at 1,217, the highest it has been since the pandemic began. Another unfortunate record: There are 10,361 active cases of COVID-19 in Ontario. And 92 long-term-care facilities are dealing with outbreaks, with that number expected to grow. Hospitalization rates remain relatively low, but if the current growth rate continues that is likely to change.

All this, even as Ontario labs processed 36,700 test samples, reporting a test positivity rate of 5.1 per cent. Health experts say a positivity rate of 3.0 indicates spread is at the tipping point toward exponential growth.

September 18, 2020

Why the provincial government chose this time to toss out the old pandemic control regime and adopt one that raises the bar on when provincially mandated control measures will be implemented is anyone’s guess. But from all appearances, the Ford government is putting keeping businesses open at the top of its priority list, even when doing so is not in the best interest of pandemic control.

When questioned about all this, Premier Doug Ford was quick point out that local public health authorities always have the option of imposing measures over and above the provincial guidelines. 

August 27, 2020

That stance puts municipal governments and their public health officers between a rock and a hard place. If you don’t believe that, ask local political and health officials in Peel Region and in Toronto. Both have implemented local lockdown measures because provincial measures were deemed insufficient under current circumstances.

Indoor dining and gyms, for example, are locked down for 28 days in both those jurisdictions. But now, instead of suffering businesspeople being angry with the province, they’re angry with local health officials and their municipal partners. 

May 16, 2020

In a way, this could be referred to as a new kind of provincial downloading. And like other forms of downloading, they serve the provincial government with little regard for the impact on municipalities and local health officials.

There is something to be said for the targeted approach to pandemic control. It is better overall than a one-size-fits all provincial solution, though it’s not perfect. But it does allow the provincial government to deflect responsibility for harsher lockdown measures.

Ontario is not in a good place in terms of controlling the spread of COVID-19. And that’s the cruelest paradox of all. Too many of us are sick and tired of pandemic restrictions on personal freedoms and commerce, so we slack off here and there, and the virus is ready and waiting for the opportunity. Now we are in the thick of the second wave, which is in many ways worse than the first. If we remain on the current trajectory, the most likely outcome is another hard lockdown like we experienced early in the pandemic. The Ford government won’t be able to dodge that bullet, and neither will the rest of us. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Thursday April 2, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday April 2, 2020

If we want the economy to recover, we need to bail out tenants and property owners, too

Coronavirus cartoons

The federal government recently introduced a plan to encourage businesses to retain workers by subsidizing 75 per cent of their wages. By providing laid-off and self-isolating workers with an alternative to employment benefits it should help limit social, economic and financial disruption from the pandemic. Rather than let the economy tailspin, the hope is to engineer a successful recovery once the virus is contained. If business activity and consumer confidence vanish, getting the economy back off the ground will be hard.

We need to expand this plan to the real estate sector. For many newly laid-off people, neither expanded Employment Insurance nor the new Emergency Response Benefit will be enough to cover rent or mortgage payments. But homeowners in Vancouver and tenants in Toronto typically have much higher monthly obligations than those in Moncton and Trois-Rivières. Issuing the same federal cheque to everyone would not be fair. Commercial tenants are just as diverse: their ability to pay rent today depends on how hard the virus has hit their business and that varies from case to case and region to region.

On the positive side, banks rebuilt their capital over the past decade and most commercial landlords, because of strong recent growth, have resources to deal with temporary difficulties. But the scope of the current crisis is unprecedented: large numbers of homeowners could soon stop paying their mortgages, while many real estate owners could default on their commercial mortgages as both tenants stop paying rents. This would force banks to take large write-offs, quickly depleting their capital and potentially throwing the country into a financial crisis.

Such an outcome can be avoided by providing rapid and targeted mortgage and rent relief where it is most urgently needed. Because governments are already over-extended, banks and real estate owners should manage the programs I’m proposing, with government limited to providing funds, liquidity and loan guarantees. Minimizing the government’s role and putting the onus of implementation on banks and landlords would encourage efficiency and speed. (Continued: Financial Post) If we want the economy to recover, we need to bail out tenants and property owners, too

The federal government recently introduced a plan to encourage businesses to retain workers by subsidizing 75 per cent of their wages. By providing laid-off and self-isolating workers with an alternative to employment benefits it should help limit social, economic and financial disruption from the pandemic. Rather than let the economy tailspin, the hope is to engineer a successful recovery once the virus is contained. If business activity and consumer confidence vanish, getting the economy back off the ground will be hard.

We need to expand this plan to the real estate sector. For many newly laid-off people, neither expanded Employment Insurance nor the new Emergency Response Benefit will be enough to cover rent or mortgage payments. But homeowners in Vancouver and tenants in Toronto typically have much higher monthly obligations than those in Moncton and Trois-Rivières. Issuing the same federal cheque to everyone would not be fair. Commercial tenants are just as diverse: their ability to pay rent today depends on how hard the virus has hit their business and that varies from case to case and region to region.

On the positive side, banks rebuilt their capital over the past decade and most commercial landlords, because of strong recent growth, have resources to deal with temporary difficulties. But the scope of the current crisis is unprecedented: large numbers of homeowners could soon stop paying their mortgages, while many real estate owners could default on their commercial mortgages as both tenants stop paying rents. This would force banks to take large write-offs, quickly depleting their capital and potentially throwing the country into a financial crisis.

Such an outcome can be avoided by providing rapid and targeted mortgage and rent relief where it is most urgently needed. Because governments are already over-extended, banks and real estate owners should manage the programs I’m proposing, with government limited to providing funds, liquidity and loan guarantees. Minimizing the government’s role and putting the onus of implementation on banks and landlords would encourage efficiency and speed. (Continued: Financial Post)