Jerry Holbert by Jerry Holbert

Jerry Holbert

Comments (30) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Clark  Kent

    Clark Kent said, over 1 year ago

    holbert, it’s not the miners, it’s the mining companies. The corporations have killed tens of thousands on miners and their family members over the years.

  2. Stipple

    Stipple said, over 1 year ago

    Tens of thousands?
    And their families?
    It is all Bush’s fault.

  3. Mats Dahlgren

    Mats Dahlgren GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Coal is a dead end energy sourse and a real poluter – creating jobs in a pro-future industry is smart.

  4. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, over 1 year ago

    Back in the ‘50s, West Virginia had more than a million coal miners. By the ’90s, they had about 10,000.

    It was automation, I know
    That was making the profits to grow

    (apologies to Alan Sherman)

    The modern coal miner is a well-paid engineer who operates the sophisticated machinery that extracts the coal. And there aren’t very many of them.

    As Nocera of the New York Times points out, fossil fuels are unlimited. More are forming faster than we can burn them. So we need to use more and more of them. Burn all the coal and natural gas and oil that we can. It’s a waste not to.

    And if climate scientists have posted temperatures on the web, and if average annual temperatures seem to be higher, that’s only because average annual temperatures always get higher in summer. The average for the entire year will be lower as soon as it’s winter. Those who say otherwise are just using maths and statistics, which no decent, right-thinking person would do.

  5. uh-oh

    uh-oh GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Lobbyist is why.

  6. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 1 year ago

    In the 80’s, a story from Germany made me realize that coal, like oil and natural gas, are finite resources. A coal mine was closing because after decades of production, there was not enough coal left to make the extraction worth the cost.
    There is an attitude in too many that says we should use up all of one thing before we invest or create another. Minerals are not leftovers in the fridge, they are part of the bone and muscle of the planet. The mining and fracking and extractions of resources between the surface of earth and our molten core has consequences far beyond the profiteering of humans who don’t care what happens to the people who outlive them, as long as they get what they want now. This is bad attitude.
    I confess to not understanding those who don’t want to invest in hydrogen gas, wind, solar, and some of the newer hydroelectric ideas, like underwater ‘fans’ that are spun by fast moving river currents. Wood was a good source until coal came along. Coal was replaced by oil/gas with great efficiency. Nuclear energy is actually a good energy source except that we allow the plants to be built to substandard conditions, ofttimes in areas where they are at risk to one threat or another, and we still haven’t decided what to do with the radioactive waste being generated. Hydrogen can be extracted from H20 at very low cost and stored in tanks to power generators to make electricity. As wind and solar energy plants increase in number and efficiency, the startup costs will drop to be lower than what we are now paying for conventional sources. Ever lower when one considers that when a wind tower collapses, it doesn’t leak tens of thousands of barrels of chemicals to be cleaned up.
    There are also new designs for wind turbines, a spiral design that could be attached to the sides of skyscrapers or alongside busy highways where the wind and the drafts from cars would cause these long spiraling fans to spin and generate energy.
    If people had worried about ‘costs’, coal mines would not have opened until the last tree had been cut down. Edison would not have been permitted to create electric power to replace the natural gas being used in his time. Mankind must move forward and create new things from which newer things can be discovered and created. The cost of not innovating is much higher than the cost of progress.
    I do not believe Mr. Obama is anti coal, but I do believe that he, like many on our planet, believe that coal is contributing to climate change and it is certainly causing pollution problems our people and our world do not need.

  7. furnituremaker

    furnituremaker said, over 1 year ago

    burned coal in my cabinet shop one winter…never again!!!!!

  8. MortyForTyrant

    MortyForTyrant said, over 1 year ago

    First of all: nice pun!


    Secondly: yes, it probably IS anti-coal, and the reason for that is that coal is a terrible energy-source, even compared with oil. In order to make it work even a bit you have to grind it to dust, basically, and it STILL does not produce the same amount of energy as natural gas does. Se, even if you are willing to stay with fossil fuel goal the the worst of your options.


    But lets move on from FF, lets use water, wind and solar as stepping stones and put money and people into fusion power. Clean, save abundant material, can operate anywhere on the planet and even outside – what more do you need? But you have to beat the vested interests first. Pity that this is no longer possible in a country that belongs to the rich now…

  9. Darren Blair

    Darren Blair said, over 1 year ago

    @Genome Project

    I take it that you missed the stories of corruption and ridiculously flagrant spending at some of the “green” firms Obama’s been pushing?
    Seems like every time Obama gives his blessing to a specific company then it almost inevitably fails in a most spectacular fashion.

  10. denis1112

    denis1112 said, over 1 year ago

    @Clark Kent

    Hittin’ them blunts a lot ?

  11. Kevin Robinson

    Kevin Robinson said, over 1 year ago

    Obama is not Anti-Coal he is Anti-American.

  12. denis1112

    denis1112 said, over 1 year ago

    @Mats Dahlgren

    Having trouble with the unemployment numbers vs jobs created?
    We come up about 1.2 million jobs short every month.354,000 newly unemployed every week x 4 =1,416,000 per month. multiply by 12 months=16,992,000 per year.
    200,000 new jobs per month x 12 months 2,400,000 new jobs per year.
    Yea. The Dems and their EPA are great for the economy.
    I wonder how long before those who want to actually work have to go to another country?Of course the dims will either charge them an exit tax or try to force them send money back to the U S to fund their non working ,non tax paying constituents who keep voting for the dimocrats.

  13. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 1 year ago

    Yeah so we are still dependent on our enemies and will cause another war in the middle east. Use the new clean coal tech and natural gas please.

  14. gameguy49

    gameguy49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Obama is dithering on okaying the Keystone pipeline that will move crude oil from Alberta’s oilsands to the Texas refineries because he is catering to the climate change crowd. Yet the US’s coal-fired power plants 50 TIMES as much as the TOTAL greenhouse gas emissions of the oilsands production.

    All this because of the myth of climate change.

  15. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 1 year ago


    Dude why? Because of the sins of a few, 100 years ago, you want to punish everybody now. From the executive at the top, to the middle management, to the foreman in the mine, to the miners themselves to the customer who will get higher gas prices to the young men and women who will have to fight another war which is the most environmentally unfriendly thing in the world.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (15).