Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (33) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, 11 months ago

    Thanks Daddy Government for telling me what light bulbs I have to buy. Cars too!
    What’s next, telling us we have to buy health insurance?

  2. omQ Release the Desaparecidos

    omQ Release the Desaparecidos said, 11 months ago


    …or environmental regulations. Because if I wanted clean air, I’d just bloviate harder.

  3. Subversive

    Subversive said, 11 months ago

    Ironic how the biggest pigs just don’t like those “pigtail” bulbs.

  4. Gary McSpook

    Gary McSpook said, 11 months ago

    Ahh yes, the Republicans, clouding over even the brightest sky.
    The party of “no.”
    As inspiring as a log jam.
    Unhappy people making tragically poor decisions.
    Where intellectual curiosity has gone the same way as concern for the poor and disadvantaged..
    Why is it that we don’t all aspire to be just like them?

  5. Ryan (Say what now‽)

    Ryan (Say what now‽) GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    I consider myself somewhat of an environmentalist, but I don’t like those pig tail bulbs because of the mercury they contain.

  6. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, 11 months ago

    The new bulbs produce as much light for just 20% as much electricity. But since incandescent bulbs are much less than 12% of total electricity consumption, the total savings will not be significant. Most industrial areas are already lit with low-energy bulbs, with incandescent mostly in households. So the savings will be about 80% of about 5%, or 4% of total electricity consumption, except for those who get the incandescent bulbs that have been exempted from the ban.

  7. cdward

    cdward said, 11 months ago


    Since corporations generally try to s-c-r-e-w us at every opportunity, I prefer having lots of government regulation. And if it weren’t for Republicans, the government wouldn’t tell us to buy health insurance – it would provide it to everyone so that small business owners wouldn’t have to worry about losing their businesses just because they get sick. Nut the very rich, who benefit most from governmental assistance, don’t like the idea that any of their hard-stolen money should actually work to make a better society.

  8. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, 11 months ago


    If an individual, with intent, did what “Freedom Enterprises” did to a state’s water supply, he would be called a terrorist, and go to jail.
    If a flesh-and-blood person did it by accident, it still might get pretty bad for him.
    But when the responsible “person” is a corporation, what happens? You think the controlling stockholders, or directors, are going to be ruined by this? Or only those with no real control over how the company operates: some low-level technician scapegoat, shareholders who will lose a bit of their investment, customers who will see their costs rise a bit, an insurance company have to pay out some damages, maybe. I don’t know.

    My question is, where is the hue and cry from the party of “personal responsibility”? More than a century ago, Ambrose Bierce defined a corporation as an ingenious device for accruing individual profit while avoiding individual responsibility.

    I’d be willing to try an experiment: we’ll eliminate all laws by which the government regulate business including those make possible that “ingenious device” the corporation. Every enterprise will have to owned by one or several actual persons who will be regarded as equal partners, and fully liable, “personally responsible” financially, legally, and morally, for the full consequences of everything their business does. If they screw up, they all lose everything and go to jail. Anybody in the “personal responsibility” camp, the “small government” camp want to sign up for that program?

  9. Michyle Glen

    Michyle Glen said, 11 months ago

    Like the Dinosaur, Congress wants to live in the past.

  10. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, 11 months ago

    I have a right to flammable clothing. How DARE the government mandate that those products can’t be sold? What gives them the right?

  11. ossiningaling

    ossiningaling said, 11 months ago

    “Passion over enlightenment”

  12. Larry

    Larry said, 11 months ago


    Choose LEDs.

  13. Newenglandah

    Newenglandah said, 11 months ago

    @Michael wme

    If (your figures) incandescent bulbs account for 12 percent of total electricity consumption and new bulbs produce as much light for just 20 percent as much electricity, we would be saving .8 × 12 percent = 9.6 percent of our electricity consumption. The US Energy Information Administration estimates US power sources as:
    -Coal 37%
    •Natural Gas 30%
    •Nuclear 19%
    •Hydropower 7%
    •Other Renewable 5%
    •Biomass 1.42%
    •Geothermal 0.41%
    •Solar 0.11%
    •Wind 3.46%
    •Petroleum 1%
    •Other Sources < 1%
    So by switching to the new bulbs, we could eliminate a quarter of all coal plants, we could eliminate nearly all hydropower plants, or we could eliminate half of all our dangerous nuclear plants. That sounds pretty significant to me.

  14. Enoki

    Enoki said, 11 months ago

    Given the “Polar Vortex” that is probably a good thing…

  15. Christopher Shea

    Christopher Shea said, 11 months ago

    Everyone who howls about more efficient light bulbs should also go ahead and trade their cell in for a candlestick phone and their car for a Model T.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (18).