I am as big a fan of the Pulitzer-prize-winning editorial cartoonist Tom Toles as anyone (just put “Toles” into the search engine for this blog). And I think I have a pretty good sense of humor. But I can’t make heads or tails out of this one:
He would appear to be saying that U.S. climate policy is rejecting the obvious life preserver of the EPA and waiting for something bigger — a cap-and-trade bill?
But that isn’t what the Obama administration is doing. Indeed, it is doubly strange for this cartoon to appear the very week “EPA makes landmark finding: Global warming threatens public health and welfare.” It is that finding that will allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
So this cartoon is quite unfair to EPA and Obama — something I’d expect from a conservative cartoonist, but not Toles.
Am I missing something — or is Toles?
You can comment on his cartoon here.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Its saying that “climate change policy” (ie- environmentalists) are hoping for Congress to directly legislate CO2 emissions (which it might do) versus the EPA doing it– which it already can do (but in a more patchwork fashion which is easier subject to lawsuits and other challenges).
Jeff — if that were true, it isn’t funny. The “hoping” part has no humor in it.
Also, climate change policy is not environmentalists.
Still looking for an explanation of where the humor might be.
Toles is my favorite political cartoonist, but I’m not sure what this means either.
My first instinct was the same as Jeff’s – there are establishment enviros who seem to have a fixation on the dubious cap-and-trade concept and are downright hostile to alternative approaches, especially command-and-control regulation. (I personally would be happy to see a dual administrative/legislative offensive, just like Bush and the Reps used to do, and I’d wouldn’t mind the regulatory wing of that being as aggressive as necessary. They clearly have the authority, and I’ve had it forever with the appeasement and defeatism of “bipartisanship seeking”.)
But if Joe knows that Toles wouldn’t conflate cchange policy with enviros, then I guess that can’t be it.
Also, the part about a “gasoline engine” seems to invalidate that interpretation.
If it had said, “something that still maintains some form of the personal-car civilization model” [meaning PHEVs etc.] then I’d still think it was a jab at mainstream environmentalism.
It seems to me that it’s a jab at congress, which is close to going down on the cc policy issue as the Obama Administration is moving forward e.g., the EPA. The ice comment is adding another punch.
I took it as directed at Congress too.
Toward Sustainability:
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue49/Costanza49.pdf
I was assuming congress, too. Especially the people who are against regulation and are using the promise of future congressional action (that they will oppose) as an excuse to denounce the EPA decision.
The cartoon reminds of the story of the pastor who prays to god during a flood. God hears his plea and promises the man to rescue him. When the waters rise higher, the man climbs the roof of his house: a rubber boat drifts along, but the man denies to enter, saying that god would save him. Later, when he’s almost drowning, a helicopter comes, but the man denies to be rescued, saying god would surely save him. Then he drowns. At the pearly gates, he is angry at god: You promised to save me, but I drowned. God replies: Well, I sent you a rubber boat and a helicopter, what else did you expect?
So I understand it that we should take what’s politically possible, without holding out to (as yet) unrealistic expectations/hopes/denying. I still don’t get the humor, though.
I’m with Maarten. That is the story I also thought of when seeing the cartoon.
I’ve never thought Toles was going for humor, he mostly goes for poignant social and political commentary, and when he’s real good, it makes one want to cry, not laugh. Most of his climate change commentary has been right on target, but simplistic, e.g. showing the White House floating away while the Bush/Cheney pinheads denied cc was real. I am perplexed too, on this one. None of the explanations above re: congress seem to satisfy me. Some lingering questions: why is climate change policy a white guy? (no offense to white guys) … Is climate change policy drowning in the ocean? If so, how “ironical” is that? (yes I know ironical isn’t a word)… Wondering… how does Toles get schooled on climate change? Who’s “advising” him? I’m wondering if he’s an innocent victim of the MSM’s horrific handling of cc in general. Is it possible that some whacky enviros are going around saying that regulating CO2 under CAA will cool the momentum for the holy grail of C&T? That cc policy white guy should “take the deal” to stay alive? And since when has anyone, ever, seen a gasoline-powered lifeboat? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? Plus, who’d be strong enough to throw it overboard? I’m with Joe on this, it’s a real head-scratcher. It’s gonna bug me all day.
Joe,
A climate policy professor I know at my school does not think that Carbon Dioxide should be regulated, per se, under the Clean Air Act. I think they fear it would be much like the “command and control” regulation of the 70s, rather than a separate cap and trade bill. Also, most EPA policy just gets challenged in courts for years and never really takes effect (see CAIR, etc.)
So the recent endangerment findings and moves to regulate CO2 under the CAA probably worry him. That’s my take.
EPA is a solution that hasn’t really taken effect yet because it is still so new. From my point of view is that its not enough and much more is needed than EPA.
It is clear to me that not everyone wants USEPA to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act.
Anne, the guy is white because it is only white guys that are ‘allowed’ to be shown as being stupid louts. Any other race and gender would distract as the audience gets roiled up with PCness.
If you can show me any cartoon relating to global warming where the butt of the joke or the ‘bad guy’ in the joke isn’t white and male I’d really like to see it.
I think the cartoon is clever. Political cartoons need not always be funny, they merely must amuse by making a point with illustration instead of words. The point is that in the CAA we may already have a means to rescue ourselves, and that we should take it. I do not see it as a criticism of the Obama administration for failing to make use of the tool.
I see it as a version of the old saw, “the perfect is the enemy of the good” – though I also thought of the same pastor story as Maarten, because of the parallel imagery. You like rhetoric Joe, so see it as rhetorical imagery!
“Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.” — Voltaire
The best is the enemy of the good, for climate change policy.
Joe, I think it is a mixed metaphor. Bill Mollison’s and David Holdgren’s “Permaculture” scenarios of a do nothing approach and an economic crash leaving only families taking care of there own by shoring up the family compound’s energy and economic needs. There will be no dependence on outside rescue on any level.
Mixed this with the fact that the EPA may have a life preserver but the many approaches out there are not going work thus leaving “the People” dog-paddling and the congress floundering. It is commentary and made to get people thinking about it. The cartoon doesn’t have to be funny. All kidding aside it is serious.
I see it as there are thousands of needs – grasping hands – The closest is the EPA – which is being ignored.
What is the EPA waiting for anyway? More like the EPA is a lifeguard on the beach refusing to move.
Oh cancel my EPA comment.. Joe you move stories so fast! I cannot keep up.
Well maybe if the topic was not so serious it would be funny. I think it draws attention to the missed opportunities to fix things that is in EPA’s hands, especially now that Obama has greatly un-hobbled them.
In Oz, we are still bickering over any sort of CC strategy, so if the message is that CC is waiting for some sort of “rescue” from a “yet-to-be-seen” origin, then the cartoons sad irony fits OK in our country.
But hey, there is great progress being made on hybrid, electric and hydrogen cars, and this is a largely market driven, or bottom up action. I know a good deal of money is now available to the alternatives, but this industry will survive or fail because of consumer response, nothing else IMHO. Well done USA.
Thx
Hey, never mind the humor “Global Warming” aint funny.
thanks..