15 Responses to “Cartoon: Fighting Global Warming”

1. wookie Writes:
   September 5th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

   Personally, I’m not big on the backgrounds. Because they are only half there in some of the panels it’s very disconcerting.

   This comment was written by wookie.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
2. Rich B. Writes:
   September 5th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

   I’ve never understood this line of argument, but I hear it so often, I wonder whom exactly it is trying to convince. It strikes me as almost as ridiculous as the Republican argument of “You think taxes should be higher, you can almost pay extra!”

   I mean, I think that most environmentalists agree, in general, with arguments of supply and demand. That’s why they generally prefer international treaties and things like the Kyoto Protocols. If one county unilaterally cuts fossil fuel use, with no agreement that everyone else does the same, that will decrease demand, lower price, and make it more cost efficient for some factory in China or Korea to use more fossil fuels. People don’t really think that if America uses 10 billion fewer barrels of oil, then there will be 10 billion less barrels used, right?

   Now, I could see a global equity argument here. “You are driving your SUV, wasting fossil fuels that could be used by a third world businessperson to start a business. It’s not fair that your discretionary use is preventing poor people from having a livelihood.” Or, on a local level, if you run your air conditioning less, fuel costs will drop and more poor people will be able to run their air conditioning on hot days.

   But the environmental argument about saving species — especially on the individual or local level like in this cartoon — just strikes me missing the point. They, and the West Coast of the United States, could stop driving altogether, and it wouldn’t save a single species. It would just be more the “fault” of poorer areas of the world when those species died.

   This comment was written by Rich B..
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
3. Robert Writes:
   September 6th, 2007 at 12:18 am

   The backgrounds are very good but they don’t fit the cartoon well - too much visual clutter. I think it would look better if they were in a park or similar open space.

   I agree with Rich B; individual action to “save the planet” is like people not having kids to “stop overpopulation”. Thanks for freeing up resources for MY descendants! Now we can have TWO H3s apiece.

   (Oh, and I love how the activist is haranguing her friend - without once mentioning what the activist is going to do. Not “what can we do” - “what are YOU going to do”. Good of you to include that bow to the reality of limo-cruising “Green” activism. ;) Probably just an artifact of your compressed workspace.)

   Oh hell, while I’m criticizing - her facial expression in the first panel makes it look like she’s pretty damn happy about the ecocide. “A million dead species! And if you help, we can make it TWO million!”

   This comment was written by Robert.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
4. Robert Writes:
   September 6th, 2007 at 1:02 am

   I wonder if you could increase the editing function timeout? I wanted to amend my last post with:

   ALL THAT SAID, I think this is a darn good cartoon!

   This comment was written by Robert.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
5. Robert Writes:
   September 6th, 2007 at 1:06 am

   Can’t…stop…editing…one final comment, and then I’ll shut the hell up.

   I think you could improve this already good cartoon 100% by changing “you” to “we” in panel two, “would you” to “could we” and “your” to “our” in panel three, and “you” to “we” in panel four.

   This comment was written by Robert.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
6. Ampersand Writes:
   September 6th, 2007 at 1:55 am

   I think you could improve this already good cartoon 100% by changing “you” to “we” in panel two, “would you” to “could we” and “your” to “our” in panel three, and “you” to “we” in panel four.

   Wow, you know… I virtually never take suggestions. But I think I’m gonna take Robert’s suggestion, in this case. Let me sleep on it.

   The backgrounds are very good but they don’t fit the cartoon well - too much visual clutter. I think it would look better if they were in a park or similar open space.

   I thought of doing that, but I’ve used that particular background rather a lot lately, and I wanted to try something else. Hopefully, I’ll get better at drawing this sort of background if I keep doing it now and then.

   This comment was written by Ampersand.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
7. acm Writes:
   September 6th, 2007 at 6:03 am

   I like the background, but I do find it a bit distracting in the last panel, where the disembodied (?) roof looks a bit like a scimitar …

   (oh, and I think changing “you” to “we” simply makes this a discussion between a lesbian couple, which might distract from the main point.)

   This comment was written by acm.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
8. r@d@r Writes:
   September 6th, 2007 at 8:39 am

   i like the backgrounds, because architecturally they seem to imply [unless i'm mistaken] the suburbs, and this looks and sounds like a conversation that would happen there. if i misread that particular visual cue, my apologies.

   This comment was written by r@d@r.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
9. Ampersand Writes:
   September 6th, 2007 at 9:21 am

   I revised the wording to incorporate Robert’s suggested changes, and I also touched up the 4th panel background in response to ACM’s comment (if you can’t see the changes, try hitting refresh). The previous version of the cartoon can be seen here, for folks who are curious.

   This comment was written by Ampersand.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
10. Ampersand Writes:
    September 6th, 2007 at 9:45 am

    r@d@r, I was thinking of it as being in a city, but a city more like Portland than New York, where there are more houses and fewer high-rises.

    This comment was written by Ampersand.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
11. nobody.really Writes:
    September 6th, 2007 at 10:04 am

    Nice cartoon. Like the language changes. Like the changes in the final panel’s background, but now I’d recommend eliminating the rest of the 2d-story window.

    I agree with Rich B; individual action to “save the planet” is like people not having kids to “stop overpopulation”. Thanks for freeing up resources for MY descendants! Now we can have TWO H3s apiece.

    I’ve notice this dynamic as well. It seems to reflect an American can-do spirit of individual self-reliance, combined with a Calvinist notion that at heart, all problems are problems of individual morality. Only now in Liberal flavor!

    This comment was written by nobody.really.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
12. hf Writes:
    September 6th, 2007 at 10:48 pm

    People don’t really think that if America uses 10 billion fewer barrels of oil, then there will be 10 billion less barrels used, right?

    Depends if we produce cheaper fuel-efficient or renewable-energy technology.

    This comment was written by hf.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
13. Madeline Writes:
    September 7th, 2007 at 6:52 am

    Is that true, by the way - a million species? Because … damn.

    Honestly, I can’t imagine the issue of global warming being resolved by the conscious choices of individuals to drive fewer miles, buy smaller cars, etc. People are just too selfish (as perhaps was the point of the cartoon). The efforts of a minority of people to cut back on fuel and such are too easily negated by the recklessness of the majority who don’t make such efforts.

    That’s not to say that we should just give up and not make any effort to save the planet on an individual basis. Personally, I feel comfort in the fact that if a glacier melts because of all the greenhouse gases in the air, at least it’s not MY overuse of fuel that’s responsible. That’s on a personal level, however. At the same time, I’m still responsible for melting glaciers and such if I watched other people abuse the planet and didn’t do anything about it.

    So yeah, this was kind of a meaningless post because when it comes down to it, I don’t know what we’re supposed to do about this. I just know that the problem needs to be addressed on a nation-wide and world-wide basis, not just on an individual one. And in addition I know that carpooling won’t save the polar bears, but it certainly won’t hurt, either, so why not do it.

    Oh, and I like the background, myself.

    This comment was written by Madeline.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
14. Ampersand Writes:
    September 7th, 2007 at 9:43 am

    Madaline, it’s true that a study (published in the journal Nature) has predicted that, if current trends continue, about a million species will be made extinct by global warming by 2050.

    Here’s an article about the study.

    I agree that it’s more about group than individual solutions; I kind of nodded to that with the idea of a tax to pay for investment in alternative energies, but overall the cartoon is flawed in that it talks too much about individual level stuff.

    I’m glad you liked the backgrounds - thanks. :-)

    This comment was written by Ampersand.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    
15. RonF Writes:
    September 15th, 2007 at 8:18 am

    My response to the questions in panels 2 and 3, and I will paraphrase:

    “Take the bus to work instead of driving”

    I don’t take my car to work because I like to drive; I take my car to work because I have to drive. There is no public transportation between my house and where I work. And given how spread out the population and the various employment places there are in the suburbs, I don’t see how public transport could practically be implemented around here.

    When I lived in the city, I didn’t own a car. And when I worked in Chicago, I drove 12 minutes to the train station and then took the train and a shuttle bus to where I worked. But they went bankrupt and I got sold (in an outsourcing deal) to a company that’s further out from the city than I am.

    “Drive more efficient cars”

    Sounds good to me. I drive a minivan that gets 18 MPG, but I work with kids a lot and often end up transporting either kids, gear or both on trips. Our other car is a 30+ MPG vehicle from the Land of the Rising Sun, and I wish I was driving one just like it.

    Now, what kind of incentives/disincentives are properly part of public policy to encourage people to switch to more efficient cars? Taxes, subsidies, etc.?

    “Higher taxes for investments in sustainable fuels”

    Hm. Actually, given especially the current world situation I consider development of alternative energy sources to be a national security issue and thus favor taxes for this purpose as a legitimate function of government. Let’s try to make sure our money is being efficiently and effectively spent, though; government doesn’t have a particularly good record of that and some kind of partnership with private organizations will probably be needed.

    This comment was written by RonF.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    

Leave a Reply

If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.

If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking software may have blocked your comment. Please contact the moderators immediately so we can rescue your comment. If this happens repeatedly, you might visit Akismet's comment form to tell them they're falsely identifying you as a spammer.