Chris Britt by Chris Britt

Chris Britt

Comments (13) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 2 years ago

    Just say no.

  2. Radish

    Radish GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    @cjr53

    Just say no to Canadians? ;-)

  3. pirate227

    pirate227 said, over 2 years ago

    No.

  4. Cynthia

    Cynthia GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Except when the Canadian in question is called Steven Harper and wants to build a pipeline. Please say no to that guy, though.

  5. BIGCHRONO

    BIGCHRONO said, over 2 years ago

    Please correct that sign @ right to Obama Dregacy.

  6. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 2 years ago

    Say no if you are in favour of freezing and starving in the dark. Because it is petroleum products that are mainly responsible for feeding a 7 billion world population through the production of fertilizer, chemicals, and energy to power farm equipment that produces the food and transports the food to a population around the globe that likes to eat. Not to mention heating in winter and cooling in summer.
    .
    Say no if you’re in favour of (I’ll take a wild-assed guess) of about one third of that 7 billion population perishing without the products from petroleum.
    .
    Say no to the Keystone pipeline if you’re in favour of the third largest reserve of petroleum on the globe going to Asia rather than staying in North America.
    .
    Say no to the transport of petroleum via pipeline if you’re in favour of transporting the petroleum to market by less environmentally friendly and hazardous methods such as by rail, barge, and truck. Because one way or another the petroleum will get to market.
    .
    Say no to the oilsands that if all were burned would increase global temperature by about .36 degrees C., but if all the coal were burned would increase global temperature 15 degrees C. (Computer modelling by two climate scientists and published in the respected scientific magazine “Nature.”)
    .
    So if you are really serious about greenhouse gasses and emissions, go after coal production that is responsible for 40% to 50% of electrical production in the U.S., 80% in China, and 70% in India. It’s just possible that a little hunger, a little freezing, and a little sweltering just might change the outlook of a lot of well-meaning but unrealistic self-proclaimed environmentalists.

  7. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 2 years ago

    You didn’t read my post very well, and you are drawing your own conclusions.

  8. Crow Nobo, fol de rol de riddle

    Crow Nobo, fol de rol de riddle said, over 2 years ago

    @Gypsy8

    Perhaps you are right.

  9. goweeder

    goweeder said, over 2 years ago

    “^ …The moment that pipeline gets built, I get a huge raise in pay. Can’t help ya’.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    So, it’s all about you, hey, and to hell with the environment. Way to go!

  10. goweeder

    goweeder said, over 2 years ago

    @Gypsy8

    “….hunger, a little freezing, and a little sweltering just might change the outlook of a lot of well-meaning but unrealistic self-proclaimed environmentalists.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because I don’t want the pipeline doesn’t mean I’m in favor of coal. It’s all a dirty business - in more ways than one.
    And why should we suffer -
    if we do enough damage to the planet, there won’t be any future generations to suffer, anyway.

  11. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 2 years ago

    @goweeder

    You’re against coal as well as petroleum products because of the unspecified damage done to the environment. In other words you’re against all carbon sources of energy. So I ask again, how are we going to feed, clothe, heat in winter, and cool in summer the world’s 7 billion population, and if we were to eliminate carbon as a source of energy, are you prepared to accept that a third (a guess) of the world population will perish? You can’t just be against something and pretend the problem is solved. And I’ll take the American anti-oilsands people seriously when they shut down their furnaces and air conditioners that are powered mainly by coal generated electricity, which is considerably more polluting than oilsands. And while they’re at it, eliminate use of all their internal combustion engines that are powered by petroleum products.
    .
    Incidentally, I consider myself an environmentalist and I contribute to wildlife organizations that protect wildlife habitant. I’m all in favor of protecting the environment for wildlife as well as humans. But there are ways to do it and then there are just plain crazy talk.

  12. goweeder

    goweeder said, over 2 years ago

    @Gypsy8

    “in other words you’re against all carbon sources of energy. So I ask again, how are we going to feed, clothe, heat in winter, and cool in summer the world’s 7 billion population,
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Why is it that NO ONE ever mentions the ‘O’ word?
    Seven billion? We would be able to support a reasonable global population
    without doing too much harm to the planet’s occupants (including wild life). But as long as there are ‘OctiMoms’ trying to set world records, and others propagating like there’s no tomorrow (which, ironically may be more true than we expect)
    It can only get worse unless we change our ways — and as far as wildlife is concerned, don’t, at this point, waste you time — when a species has lost its habitat, it’s heading for extinction anyway.

  13. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 2 years ago

    @goweeder

    “……and as far as wildlife is concerned, don’t, at this point, waste you time — when a species has lost its habitat, it’s heading for extinction anyway…..”
    .
    Which is a good argument for conserving it’s habitat.

  14. Refresh Comments.