Matt Wuerker by Matt Wuerker

Matt Wuerker

Comments (26) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 3 years ago

    Typical fantasyland, emotional lies from the left.

    The Keystone Pipeline will help millions of families with lower bills, while that Solyndra mirage will only help a few of Barry’s friends.

  2. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    This cartoon represents part of the problem. It is not an either – or situation we are in. Green energy is not capable of maintaining our energy needs yet and fossil fuels can. This doesn’t mean we abandon green energy implementation. That can continue while at the same time we develop our fossil fuel reserves. We still have an opportunity to grow our economy and add to our energy independence with the Keystone pipeline. Obama’s administration has cleared it to be started, he just needs to sign off on the project.

  3. Wabbit

    Wabbit GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    If we quit giving subsidies to big oil and gave them for green energy it wouldn’t take us long to catch up to the rest of the free world! We are NOT number1 in this.
    the pipeline will run near where I live, and over a big aquifer that supplies clean drinking water to people, livestock and pets in 7 states.
    NOW it does. if that famously leaky pipeline goes thru, about a 99% chance it will become too polluted to be a clean water source.

  4. Earl Babbie

    Earl Babbie GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    There may be a limited number of temporary jobs to build the pipeline, but cleaning up the spills will provide many, permanent jobs—because we don’t know how to clean up tar sands.

  5. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 3 years ago

    Both panels are extreme exaggerations.

  6. ronald rini

    ronald rini said, over 3 years ago

    the only problem the picture on the left is costing us a fortune in tax money and most of it does not pay for it self and in the long run will end up in land fills

  7. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 3 years ago

    There shouldn’t be anything “left” or “right” about this kind of policy issue. The supply of fossil fuels is not endless. I don’t know when we will run out, I think no one really knows, but we do know that we will run out eventually. At some point we will need a new source of energy. In addition, burning fossil fuels is not good for the environment.
    This is not a new problem — the human race has shifted its energy supplies several times before, and I’m sure we can do it again. But we need to put money into research. I’m quite sure that more fission power plants will be built — of course they bring their own problems — including the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons. Fusion so far doesn’t seem to be working out, after more than fifty years of very expensive research. If we had put all the money from fusion research into “green” or “alternative” energy, we would be way ahead now.

  8. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    I’d really like to see a link to provide evidence to your point of “more jobs being opened by them than any other.” Right now the hiring on the part of the drillers and oil companies is incredibly strong. They can’t fill all the vacancies they have.

  9. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    I have a couple of friends working in Pennsylvania and Colorado that are working 60 hours a week on average and they are still trying to hire more people. It’s a lot more than just North Dakota.

  10. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, over 3 years ago

    That’s our own fault. We had the opportunity to become a leader in green energy production, but blew it because too much money is tied up in oil. The pipeline and oil in the US is still too limited to provide complete energy independence, especially over the long term. Green energy can, except that many of the patents for materials and production are now held overseas.
    Of course, the plan was never to become energy independent in the first place. We have a global economy now, and the more hands a product has to pass through to get to the end consumer, the more money there is to be made.

  11. NormN354

    NormN354 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    As long as the planet Earth keeps paying a tithe to planet America the subsidies for the solar cells(which have to be replaced every five years) can continue. The fantasy world pictured is totally dependent on rare minerals imported from Mongolia. Of course increasing the demand for a finite resource will lower the cost because no one would dare disappoint America.

  12. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago


    Yes, so what have you done to support “green” energy? Drive a volt? Add solar panels?

    I googled my house (new pictures on google earth by the way) and there they are, my panels on my roof. I retreated to where I could just make them out and guess what….. the ONLY house for MILES and MILES with solar electricity.

    Why IS that? Simply put it is too expensive for the average person to do. I saved for 25 years to do it. But I have them and they have cut my bill by 75%.

    So pony up. You want green energy to succeed then YOU must support it with YOUR money and create the market. The government can subsidize the industry but if no one can afford the product ………..

  13. EJF

    EJF said, over 3 years ago

    Boy O Boy someone is sure looking thru rose colored glasses.

  14. Rickapolis

    Rickapolis said, over 3 years ago

    We could be SO much farther along in ‘green’ jobs if the same old , ah, let’s say ‘traditionalists’ would get out of the way of progress. Pathetic.

  15. Caligulla

    Caligulla said, over 3 years ago

    Forgot to put “Out of Business” signs on about half of those “green energy” companies, though for the sake of argument the failure rate on “green energy” companies in in excess of 90%.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (11).