Gary Varvel by Gary Varvel

Gary Varvel

Comments (12) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 3 years ago

    I’m not a big fan of the EPA, but I think that checking the Bear Run Mine run off only once a month is entirely inadequate.

  2. William Bednar

    William Bednar GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    So, jobs are more important that clean air? If so, how many potential emplyees will be availabie if the air is so fowl that no one survives to work in the mines?

  3. magicwalnut

    magicwalnut GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @Rx…Well, if no one is available to work in the mines, the air will be cleaner! It may be a round about plan, but it will get us there…..

  4. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 3 years ago

    I have had a bad feeling about the EPA for years.

  5. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    At some point there’s a diminishment of returns on protections to the environment. Here’s what I mean:

    You are right; they had to fix the smog issues. They had to clean up their act. But, once you get to that point, and then pass it… that’s when you start hurting people and jobs. Businesses will do one of three things if regulations are pushed on them: They cut jobs, raise prices on consumers, or both. All of these hurt every day people, especially lower-and-middle class people.

    The EPA on more than one occasion has crossed the line from “protecting the environment,” to “trying to accomplish some political agenda.” There needs to be a balance, and politics should be kept out of it. What they are doing now is politics and hurts the average American worker.

  6. Quipss

    Quipss said, over 3 years ago

    The Obama, as you seem to like to call him/it/ whatever you choose, has taken actions against coal.

    Now considering this is a low capital industry as opposed to other energies ( including natural gas, oil). It can actually function as economic stimulus.

    Coal is essentially the most regressive form of energy in what is the laziest industry in terms of trying to actually extract energy from coal (due to abundance) with most plants functioning at all of 25-30% efficiency as opposed to most energy production being 40% +

    If there is any desire to make coal competitive beyond its low capital investment then this is the right direction to take as it creates market pressure

  7. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    Cap & Trade, specifically. Not so much in limiting carbon, but when Obama specifically states that he is going to make it so costly to own a coal power plant that it will bankrupt them, that’s a political agenda. And the arm of government that would enforce that agenda would be the EPA. That’s politicizing an environmental protection effort. Your goal, for such an effort, should be to protect the environment, not tax/punish a business into bankruptcy.

  8. Mr. Ngn33r

    Mr. Ngn33r GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Not so, anti-coal…are you parroting talking points?

  9. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, over 3 years ago

    “I’ve had a bad feeling about Al-obama ever since he opened his mouth!”

    I’ve had a bad feeling about the environment since …. oh, about 1980 …

  10. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    So, the fact that the EPA is moving after the canary is dead but before the miners are also killed ….

  11. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    It’s not about increasing his political power, it’s about accomplishing a specific political agenda. His goal isn’t to save the environment, his goal is to assert his dominance over a specific industry and make it so costly to the consumer that the turn to “Green” alternatives. It’s not his job to pick winners and losers, nor is it his job to dictate pricing structures (either directly or through coercion).

    When he makes blanket statements like that, he is ignoring the real world. Renewable energy isn’t a viable replacement right now, and all his machinations will do is increase the costs for working-class people. Something like this should go through Congress, not the EPA. The will of the people should be dictating environmental policy, not an ideologue.

  12. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Flying into L.A. after ‘Nam, from Seatac, the pilot announced they were switiching to instrument flight regulations because the smog was so thick, they couldn’t find L.A.! It was like looking into a bowl of orange-brown soup, and people were literally dying from what they called “air” down there.

    Along came that commie-socialist Richard Nixon and signed NEPA, creating the EPA.. In just a few years, the air cleared in L.A., and people stopped dying because they used their lungs. Yes, it was indeed a socialist plot!!

    Now, “big energy”, which is actually coal, nuclear, natural gas, and oil, AND solar and wind, all basically controlled by the same folks, want to reverse that progress. Well, actually, under “W” and Cheney, they did in many areas.

    There is of course no need to protect the environment, as James Watt said, because Jesus is just around the corner, driving a 1964 Mercedes 190D (as in diesel), and going to ship all the “good people” off to heaven. Of course, the air is just as contaminated there, because Watt and friends kept on truckin’, and making the bucks off wasting resources. (But I suspect Watt will be shoveling coal down in the “boiler room” when his actions catch up with him.)

  13. Refresh Comments.