We can’t start building homes to live in! What will become of the cave market if we do that!?
Just follow the Rump’s lead and deregulate all ecological safe guards to appease the big corporations. As long as he fat cats get rich, who cares about the rest of the population down stream?
Also the beginning of the end of humanity, but hey, aren’t all cartoonists rich so you can move to a better place?
Does Mr. Catalino know something the rest of the world doesn’t? Or did he hear a ‘news’ item on FOX?
Gee, the truck driver wonders, How come so many cars and trucks exited at that turnoff to Greenville? Oh well, I’ll just keep driving on to Resource Depletion City in that great State of Denial.
“Fossil fuels” is in and of itself a misnomer. Petroleum and coal have so many useful purposes that aren’t fuel. If you define “the economy” as how much profit the obscenely rich are seeing, you’re missing the point. But if you look at how well we’d do if we did move to greener energy sources, you wouldn’t be a Rethuglican. Choices, choices.
“Drill, baby, drill” is the equivalent of someone yelling “Typewriters, baby, typewriters” at the dawn of the personal computer age.
The Chinese are investing tens of billions in factories building electric batteries and vehicles, solar panels, wind turbines, etc. Really foolish, eh, destroying their economy with that spending /s
Ummm… exactly WHAT “Ban on Fossil Fuels” are you babbling about, Ken?? Or did you have ANOTHER psychotic episode??
I remember them saying the same thing with sailing ships protesting the ban on commercial whaling after oil was found to have uses other than polluting water wells.
I don’t remember anyone calling for a out right ban on fossil fuels. Replacing them with cleaner cheaper alternatives is not the same as a ban. There is more to fossil fuels than gas and diesel. Very disingenuous, and misleading.
The development and use of alternative energy sources can be very good for a countries economy. Take your head out the sand tars.
We have our own fuels, no need to deal with or depend on foreign oils. Of course the root of this is trump wants to build hotels in every country….that’s the price WE pay for his treason dealings….
Nobody is banning fossil fuels. There is money to be made from alternative energy. The economy will be fine. Calm down and carry on.
It has to happen eventually.
Can’t find a real issue to parody? Oh well, just make one up.
If a ban on fossil fuels is bad, what will happen when they run out altogether? That will happen at around 2060.
There is no ban on fossil fuels, but there is increased emphasis placed on renewable energies. And while the present government is backing down on renewables, the advantages of free energy has not be lost on many corporations. They already use passive solar and solar panelled roofing among other innovations to cut back on the use of fossil fuel derived energy.
No one proposed banning fossil fuels. But their subsidies should be removed. Subsidies were started over a century ago to develop what was a new industry then. These subsidies should be moved to renewable development
What a dumbass. Outsourcing all our jobs to China and wasting trillions on forever war are destroying the America economy.
Many European countries are putting tight restrictions on vehicles using fossil fuels. What happens if they impose restrictions and penalties on countries not following suit? Thanks to the White Weasel, America would have little influence to influence those countries.
Several towns in MA have proposed by-laws that ban the use of fossil fuels for all new construction. No natural gas, propane or fuel oil. No gas fireplaces, no built-in BBQ grilles, even. All electric. Like cooking with gas? sorry…no gas cooktops or stoves. As I’ve witnessed in the past, once a by-law is enacted in a few towns, it spreads like cancer to other towns, especially when it doesn’t impose costs on current voters – only future residents.
There is a current effort to place this same language within our state building code and require that buildings be net-zero energy (similar to what CA has adopted that goes in effect in a few months). I’ll be at a public hearing next month to present const. cost-data to show that the improvement in energy efficiency from the recently adopted Energy Code to net-zero makes a small difference in carbon impact for a very large cost. Net-zero requires solar panels which have an up-front cost on a single family home of anywhere from $25k to $40k for most home – even more on a large home. That’s hard cost only, not including the builder’s overhead and profit mark-up which is roughly another 20-25%. This would cause an instant jump in home prices, rents and commercial lease rates, which are already among the top 3 highest in the country and we have the highest median home price out of all 50 states. If you’re in the middle-class and don’t currently own a home, you’ve probably been priced out of the market already. Further costly regulations will only make the lack of affordable housing more dire. A better solution is to allow the energy code to keep getting tighter (we adopt a new, more stringent code every 3 years here), let the market continue to respond to increasing demand for super efficient buildings (often net-zero or LEED platinum) and rather than burden only new construction, provide financial incentives for both new and existing buildings to improve efficiency.
Also, I should note by example, that the carbon footprint from new construction in Boston built in the last decade is roughly 2% of the city’s footprint. The carbon footprint of all building in Boston makes up 85% of their total carbon footprint. It’s clear that the effort should be to improve efficiency of existing buildings.
We need to continue to pour billions of dollars of socialist tax payer subsides into the fossil fuel companies so they can continue to pollute the world and deny climate change.
Umm…that’s not a thing.
Have you been huffing from one of those exhaust pipes, Mr. Catalino?
Appears that Catalino has fallen for another of #45’s ignorant claims!
No need for a ban just yet – how about we simply stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industries?
I wouldn’t ban fossil fuels. I would tax them, at the source, when they enter the economy. That is, I would pose a one-time levy on coal upon its initial sale after it came out of the mine. Same with oil and gas after they came from the well or off the ship. I would tax it based on it’s carbon content which would be calculated at 100% of the weight of coal, 87% percent of the weight of crude oil, and 75% of the weight of natural gas.
The system would be much simpler than a ban to enforce: just tax the big producers based on what they sell.
is the message here that we can only grow if we destroy the environment? If so, you we need to go back to the drawing board.