Joel Pett by Joel Pett

Joel PettNo Zoom

Comments (9) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ODon

    ODon said, over 3 years ago

    “Cut Here”

  2. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 3 years ago

    There are no major projects that you can get environmentalists to love.

  3. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 3 years ago

    Sure there are. The successful solar projects in Arizona, the installation of wind farms in Wyoming, the restoration of the Everglades, the opening of wetlands along the Mississippi — and the project of keeping tar sands oil that will do nothing for America and create less than 80 permanent jobs the heck away from the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies most of Nebraska’s farms, cities, and agriculture.

  4. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 3 years ago


    I don’t think the environmentalists “loved” those projects. Different environmental groups tolerate different things that others object to and they argue over them quite often, sometimes to the point of lawsuit and counter-suit.

  5. ODon

    ODon said, over 3 years ago


    Would you be willing to drop the word “environmental” in your second sentence?

  6. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Most of the “keystone” already exists, along with thousands of additional miles of natural gas, oil, coal slurry, and other pipelines. Don’t folks see all those kindly ads from the energy folks telling us how good all those pipelines are?

    Envrionmental issues are complex, which is why minor projects only require “Categorical Exclusions”, others “Environmental Analysis”, and others Environmental Impact Statements. NEPA was passed in ’69 and signed by Nixon to try to stem disasters, and at least call for analysis. Interestingly, the law calls for analysis of impacts on the “human environment”.

    Not all solar projects, or wind are “good” either, some have terrible consequences for the natural environment. Fossil fuels being increasingly used however, are just “worse”. Even with increasing populations, conservation, and maintaining a REASONABLE “lifestyle” are possible. The question is: does everyone in the world having a 96 inch TV, a 6,000 square foot house, and a fleet of 4 mile per gallon cars, “reasonable”?

    While the argument that much (not all) starvation around the world is largely “political” is to a degree still true, the reality is that long before sea levels wipe out all those coastal cities, agricultural production to keep up with population, and demands, due to climate change, WILL begin to fail. Even those “wonder crops” we here so much about have a slight problem of having less “food value”. Growing corn that produces its own pesticide, to kill bugs, so that the corn can be made into automotive fuel, isn’t the most “brilliant” thing science has given us either.

  7. Stipple

    Stipple said, over 3 years ago

    I cannot remember the last time I said “Gee, I wish I could eat gasoline”
    I wish daily that food was more plentiful. I do not own a car so gasoline can not even take me to the grocery store.

    Different perspectives. NEED the pipeline? For what?

    Want and need are fairly mixed up here, spoiled people want lots of stuff, poor people need things.

  8. Cynthia

    Cynthia GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    The oil sand may be bringing money to one province, but they are screwing up Canada socially, economically, politically and environmentally.

    Don’t ever do anything to help that industry, please!

  9. Kaffekup

    Kaffekup said, over 3 years ago

    I’m sure you would all be ecstatic if it leaked tarry oil all over your property. Short term jobs sending dirty Canadian oil to texas to ship to be sold on the world market. But hey, it’s energy independence for America, right?

  10. Refresh Comments.