Tim Eagan by Tim Eagan

Tim EaganNo Zoom

Comments (22) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Soooo…. your argument is that the artist is as likely addicted to oil as everyone else? That only proves his point.

  2. bawana

    bawana said, over 1 year ago

    Our “world” RUNS ON OIL! get over it. You think that if you make it hard enough to get, people will all jump on mass transit? really? Somebody has a healthy ego……….

  3. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, over 1 year ago

    He’s a loony lefty from California, so he probably DOES use only bicycles and public transportation and has no need of either home heating or air conditioning.

  4. packratjohn

    packratjohn said, over 1 year ago

    Is the argument about oil dependency, or the pipeline itself? They both have their problems and pitfalls. Most everyone who addresses dependency speaks of reducing, not eliminating our dependency. We simply must develop alternatives. Coal is another dependency we have to start reducing. I am addicted to hot water, electric appliances, a car, a computer… as are we all. It wouldn’t bother me to have a solar water heater or a computer powered by a wind source. Yeah, I know wind generators have problems as well. I’d like to jump ahead about a thousand years, see what we have accomplished in energy generation and use. Futurama, anyone?

  5. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    We could be nearly free of it if we had started in the 1970’s. Now the worse stuff every, the methamphetamine of the petrochemical world is being mined.

  6. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Yes to pollute and change the world into a living hell. Oh yes you deity works in nefarious ways.

  7. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Well since Obama is both a Con. And Capitalist he sides with the Keystone which will bring us only woe and terrible pollution.

  8. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago


    It is about oil dependency that brings us this pipe full of toxins many times worse than sweet crude. This is desperation. And we won’t even get any of it, until it leaks out, it will be sent over seas.
    We could get off of 90% if we spent more time on energy efficiency and less on a global war we have been working on since 1980.

  9. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    There are ways around petrochemicals. Also the GHG generation will make things that much harder a time goes on. Petrochemicals are so 19th century. Time to move away into a cleaner future.

  10. HabaneroBuck

    HabaneroBuck said, over 1 year ago

    Yes, people are addicted to energy sources. Crazy concept, I know.

  11. Kaffekup

    Kaffekup said, over 1 year ago

    The cons won’t let us off petrochemicals until the last drop is gone. Then they’ll blame us for not being prepared with another fuel.
    Yes, oil is in a lot of plastics and other things. That’s one reason we shouldn’t burn all of it in a SUV going to the convenience store for a Big Gulp.

  12. Hectoruno

    Hectoruno said, over 1 year ago


    And the Big Gulp comes in a plastic cup made from oil.

  13. Lynne B

    Lynne B GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Or, here’s a thought, instead of creating ways to exploit dirtier and more expensive carbon energy sources, we could instead put that money into developing alternatives – so that we have not only cleaner energy sources, but also so that we have them before every single drop of oil is squeezed out of the earth and the situation becomes 10x as expensive as it is now.

    Thinking that the only alternative to oil is living in a “3rd world country” is actually the best way to use up all the oil and condemn us all to that living standard because we haven’t developed something else.

    Think about it.

  14. Lynne B

    Lynne B GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Not funding an incredibly dirty source of petrochemicals, most of which will be exported after refining to Asia, =/= “stifling current sources”, though.

    We HAVE enough current sources for current demand, believe it or not. What this is doing is simply opening up another revenue stream for the petrochemical companies based on a carbon model. We should not be subsidizing this. We should be putting this money, which you should note is coming from our tax revenue via the government, into development of cleaner sources, not opening up new dirtier sources.

  15. Melekalikimaka

    Melekalikimaka said, over 1 year ago

    Can’t have hemp legal, we night be able to grow enough to actually replace most petrochemical products in a non toxic manner. That requires logic and Government representative’s buddies deciding that it was okay to be filthy rich instead of obscenely rich.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (7).
Calvin and Hobbes 30th Anniversary