Comments (16) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   cartooncrazy218 said, 4 months ago

   I like his drawing style and message.

2. 

   dtroutma said, 4 months ago

   Should have learned to tread water.

3. 

   DrCanuck said, 4 months ago

   HA!

4. 

   churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

   Fine, let’s talk about energy independence. Where do we drill first?

   Congress can’t legislate energy independence. Industrial economies demand energy. That’s just the way it is. Would you have us go back to living like we did in the 1800’s? Doubt you’d like the horse waste, steam locomotives or whale blubber.

   When you find the dilithium crystals, be sure to let us know, ‘aye captain? (star trek reference)

5. 

   NoFearPup said, 4 months ago

   ^^Toon: Even better than Goebbels. If liberal disappointment can be captured and bottled, we could try to use that.

6. 

   Robert Peters said, 4 months ago

   Where to drill first? How about on some of the former Seven Sisters’ existing oil lease. Once they use or lost that, we can talk about letting them have some more.

   Long as they would rather buy it from the BinLaden family, releasing the entire continent to them won’t make a bit of difference except on their paper financial statements.

   By the end of this century, the twentieth century energy sources currently being held up as the only thing in which to invest will seem something akin to the nineteenth-century stuff churchie was just blasting.

   The twenty-first century is here whether the cons like it or not. Past time to start developing twenty-first century energy sources.

7. 

   nomad2112 said, 4 months ago

   Search on “EPA May Have Suppressed Anti-Global Warming Study”

8. 

   motivemagus said, 4 months ago

   churchill: On Energy Independence: drilling won’t do it. A lot of people think we are already past “peak oil,” meaning it’s only going to get harder and more expensive to get. And the US is way ahead of the rest of the world in using what we had. (Even if we drilled in ANWR, it would last only six months.)
   The answer to your question is a combination of energy efficiency to make better use of the energy we have (California has maintained flat demand for five years, so it’s definitely possible), and develop an array of alternative sources. We were the world leaders in solar power technology until Reagan killed funding; I like to think we could build it up again. I have a physicist friend at MIT who has told me about some exciting developments. We should also continue to develop wind, and try to make “Clean Coal” a real possibility instead of the oxymoron it is today. Fusion is looking more and more difficult to carry off, but we should go after it anyway. If we can pull that off, we’re in a whole new ballgame. No dilithium crystals required.
   
   How’s that?

9. 

   churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

   ^That’s all great. But the gov’t can’t mandate it.

10. 

    TrickyPickle said, 4 months ago

    Motive: But I want dilithium crystals! And teleporters. But more than those, I want the food assimilators. Press a button and instantly get any food you want. That’s what I’m talking about. Anyway the whole point of alternative energy is and should be that fossil fuels are finite. We can’t use ‘em forever, and the sooner we develop alternatives, the better off we’ll be. Regardless of whether the globe is warming or cooling. What’s wrong with developing fuel efficient cars? What, you’re happy paying more to fill your tank? There are lots of green initiatives evreyone can agree on whether or not you believe in global warming folks. BTW why so many climate change ‘toons this week? Something happen that I missed?

11. 

    Gladius said, 4 months ago

    I definitely don’t want food assimilators. Somebody would get a hold of the programming and it would tell me I couldn’t have a steak because it’s bad for me. :)

12. 

    motivemagus said, 4 months ago

    churchill, who said anything about government mandating it? For decades, the government has supported various research efforts to jumpstart ideas as well as basic science that turns out to be fabulously useful. We wouldn’t have atomic energy at all – problems with it notwithstanding – without government research funding. We’ve also provided tax breaks to oil companies (ridiculous considering their profit margins) for things like “exploration.” Great. Let’s take those breaks and fund more companies with good ideas who need some seed money. Now we’re funding people making electric cars – including Tesla Motors, so they can build a sedan people can purchase. No mandate involved – just giving a leg up to a potential major industry.
    And you can use the free market for a lot of it – note how fast GM fell and Toyota rose when gas prices went up.

13. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    That is not what the tax and cr@p bill is about. I suggest you read it (and then ask your congressmen why they didn’t).

    But then I’m talking to (at least one of you) who don’t even KNOW about the bill, let alone what’s in it, yet chimes in about fuel efficient cars.

14. 

    Corosive Frog said, 4 months ago

    People argue that there is CO2 in the athmosphere anyways…

    Would you bathe in the Hudson River after it took two centuries (and more) of New-York sewers? All rivers have some amount of coliforms in it, just as out air has some amount of CO2.

15. 

    motivemagus said, 4 months ago

    churchill, I’m not discussing cap and trade. I’m talking about government “mandating” energy independence, following your own post.

16. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    MOTIVE: According to our brillian legislators,”energy independence” is one of the reasons they voted for cap and trade, therefore one of the reasons that they’ve MANDATED it.

    Congress married the two issues, not me.

    The cartoon is about the cap and trade bill (see the congressman on top?) not just the general ideas of “global warming” or “energy independence”. If you really followed my posts, you would see that.