Advertisement

Ken Catalino for October 24, 2019

55 Comments

Hide All Comments
  1. Missing large
    Daeder  3 months ago

    We can’t start building homes to live in! What will become of the cave market if we do that!?

     •  Reply
  2. Sammy on gocomics
    Say What Now‽ Premium Member 3 months ago

    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?

     •  Reply
  3. E067 169 48
    Darsan54 Premium Member 3 months ago

    Also the beginning of the end of humanity, but hey, aren’t all cartoonists rich so you can move to a better place?

     •  Reply
  4. Picture
    EdMeiller Premium Member 3 months ago

    Does Mr. Catalino know something the rest of the world doesn’t? Or did he hear a ‘news’ item on FOX?

     •  Reply
  5. Missing large
    PraiseofFolly  3 months ago

    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.

     •  Reply
  6. Rainbow brain
    Concretionist  3 months ago

    “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.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    WaitingMan  3 months ago

    “Drill, baby, drill” is the equivalent of someone yelling “Typewriters, baby, typewriters” at the dawn of the personal computer age.

     •  Reply
  8. Celtic tree of life
    mourdac Premium Member 3 months ago

    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

     •  Reply
  9. Americanflag
    Masterskrain Premium Member 3 months ago

    Ummm… exactly WHAT “Ban on Fossil Fuels” are you babbling about, Ken?? Or did you have ANOTHER psychotic episode??

     •  Reply
  10. Pat new 150
    Patjade Premium Member 3 months ago

    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.

     •  Reply
  11. 90pix beer gnome
    gnome~ 20 PETE 20  3 months ago

    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.

     •  Reply
  12. Missing large
    Odon  3 months ago

    The development and use of alternative energy sources can be very good for a countries economy. Take your head out the sand tars.

     •  Reply
  13. 1be5f3b2 0fd4 40fd ad1f 69b3df564ed4
    Zebrastripes  3 months ago

    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….

     •  Reply
  14. Homoerectus
    fusilier  3 months ago

    https://electrek.co/2019/10/23/tesla-semi-electric-truck-production-limited-volume-2020/

    Just Sayin’

    fusilier

    James 2:24

     •  Reply
  15. Missing large
    ed27  3 months ago

    Nobody is banning fossil fuels. There is money to be made from alternative energy. The economy will be fine. Calm down and carry on.

     •  Reply
  16. Fb img 1509486198333
    e.groves  3 months ago

    It has to happen eventually.

     •  Reply
  17. Coexist
    Bookworm  3 months ago

    Can’t find a real issue to parody? Oh well, just make one up.

     •  Reply
  18. Photo
    VadimUzdensky1  3 months ago

    If a ban on fossil fuels is bad, what will happen when they run out altogether? That will happen at around 2060.

     •  Reply
  19. Missing large
    preacherman  3 months ago

    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.

     •  Reply
  20. 20841741 470526546644028 5711918097007563718 n
    Nantucket Premium Member 3 months ago

    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

     •  Reply
  21. Missing large
    randolini Premium Member 3 months ago

    What a dumbass. Outsourcing all our jobs to China and wasting trillions on forever war are destroying the America economy.

     •  Reply
  22. Missing large
    kentmarx36 Premium Member 3 months ago

    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.

     •  Reply
  23. Missing large
    guyjen2004  3 months ago

    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.

     •  Reply
  24. Missing large
    guyjen2004  3 months ago

    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.

     •  Reply
  25. Agent gates130516four
    Rad-ish, see No Ambiguity on Sherpa Premium Member 3 months ago

    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.

     •  Reply
  26. Cottagepainting   copy  2
    GuacamoleCostsExtra  3 months ago

    Umm…that’s not a thing.

     •  Reply
  27. Rwljlogo2
    The Wolf In Your Midst  3 months ago

    Have you been huffing from one of those exhaust pipes, Mr. Catalino?

     •  Reply
  28. Missing large
    DrDon1  3 months ago

    Appears that Catalino has fallen for another of #45’s ignorant claims!

     •  Reply
  29. Missing large
    DrPawl  3 months ago

    No need for a ban just yet – how about we simply stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industries?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/30/america-spends-over-20bn-per-year-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-abolish-them

     •  Reply
  30. Missing large
    DrPawl  3 months ago

    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.

     •  Reply
  31. Missing large
    tauyen  3 months ago

    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.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement
Advertisement