Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (26) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Ottodesu

    Ottodesu said, over 3 years ago

    Part of that dynamic is the consideration that a decreasing amount of energy will be obtained from fossil fuels as compared to an increase in renewables.
    The long term outlook could be that fossil hydrocarbons will be primarily used for lubrication and production of plastics.

  2. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, over 3 years ago

    It has never been about running out of fossil fuels, it has always been about running out of affordable fossil fuels. And all their costs have to be considered.

  3. AAdoglover

    AAdoglover said, over 3 years ago

    More expensive fuel is good. Why? Fewer jobs go overseas and some even come back when fuel prices rise. We need to stop whining and move closer to work, because we will have work.

  4. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 3 years ago

    Doubt that it was corporations that killed Tesla’s “free energy.” It was probably physics.

  5. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 3 years ago

    “Since the fact that temperatures go up and down is proof that there is no global warming,” Thanks for the biggest laugh of the day! You guys are such tools of the Koch brothers. You do know that temperatures have increased faster over the past 100 years than any time in the past 20,000 years? And that climate change is already adversely affecting our ability to grow food? And you STILL think that a carbon tax is the biggest threat to human existence?

  6. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    “We could have escaped with Tesla free energy”


    Hardly a car produced for the masses at another company that is buried in red ink and dependent on government financing to continue.


    http://www.autoguide.com/manufacturer/tesla/2013-tesla-model-s-review-2146.html

  7. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @ARodney

    “And that climate change is already adversely affecting our ability to grow food? And you STILL think that a carbon tax is the biggest threat to human existence?”


    First I would like to see a scientific link to your assertion about food production being impacted.
    Second, you are aware that the “carbon tax” you propose isn’t coming out of the energy producers, it will be passed through to the consumer, as all producer taxes are. “Carbon taxes are a type of Pigovian tax.Carbon taxes can be a regressive tax, in that they may directly or indirectly affect low-income groups disproportionately.”
    Ooops, another job for the government to subsidize the poor so they aren’t affected by a regressive tax and a larger burden on the taxpayers to fund the increased rebates/credits.
    I love the expression “Pigovian tax.”


    BTW, I heard on NPR that the CO2 levels on the East coast had already dropped because so many coal fired energy plants are being replaced with “cleaner, more efficient and cost effective natural gas.” Since we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, that seems like a good integral step to kill the proverbial 2 birds with one stone while we develop truly efficient and cost effective methods of “green energy.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

  8. Justice22

    Justice22 said, over 3 years ago

    Dream on! The US’s greatest export today is oil and oil products. It is sold for less than we pay for what we import. Make Sense?

  9. Justice22

    Justice22 said, over 3 years ago

    Yes, Harley, If you compress CO2 and then release it, CO2 does cool. Just ask any seaman who needed to cool a beer fast. The CO2 fire extinguishers were always empty.

  10. Rickapolis

    Rickapolis said, over 3 years ago

    ’Here comes the sun, da da da da, here comes the sun…"

  11. Stipple

    Stipple said, over 3 years ago

    You had me until “warmer than the day before”, that amount of ignorance and you would not understand how a keyboard works.
    .
    A lot of thought was put into your post, just letting you know it is appreciated.

  12. edclectic

    edclectic said, over 3 years ago

    @Doughfoot

    As well as who is going to reap all the profits controlling access to said “natural world [public?]resources”.

  13. Wabbit

    Wabbit GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    addicts to oil, and tt’s gonna run out and it wont be pretty

  14. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, over 3 years ago

    Which is why we’re in this mess. It’s been a long time since anybody did anything on behalf of consumers.

    Having said that: agreed!

  15. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, over 3 years ago

    All the current industries are set up to use existing technologies of course; that’s cheaper.

    But Tesla’s work should be examined much more closely. He was a genius and moved far beyond Edison; it just happened that Edison had better connections, so we have Edison’s technology.

    There is a lot of useful stuff in Tesla’s work, if anyone cared to develop it. But one has to commit resources to development, and it’s apparent that our energy Moguls subscribe to the ‘bird in the hand’ philosophy. Why risk their billions in profits on something that might ding them in the pocket book? Or their Cayman Island accounts.

    Tesla’s work is only one of the many possible avenues to explore.

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