[QUOTE=ChristopherL]

I think there is a very good chance of another NEP - in a disguised form.

That would likely be Kyoto, from which the Canadian auto industry and other eastern interests will be exempt. And it will likely happen after the next election, assuming Martin and Co. win a majority as suspected.

There ain't one ******* on the government side of the house who has a hot clue at the extent of western alienation.

I think they're aware of the extent, but don't give a rat's ***. What they are unaware of is the resolve of Albertans, and the consequences of federal government treachery toward this province.

Hell, if the Albertan's go for it, I will sure as hell move from Ontario and join them.

...Where you'd most likely be welcomed with open arms. And many who dissed Alberta before would likely follow as Canada's situation worsened. They'd be welcomed too, but the rules in the country of Alberta would likely insist that they leave their socialist political baggage at the door on the way in.

Canada is dissolving into regional political interest zones, and the Liberals are COMPLETELY to blame for it. I used to be somewhat of a proponent of Canada, now I think it is a aimless, immoral and increasingly rudderless backwater, whose only output is those who prattle tediously about "Canadian values." Well that's code for Liberal Party values, and they ain't mine. Last one out turn out the goddamn lights.

Whoa, them's some pretty non-politically-correct words--- you'll fit right in here!
But just because the truth hurts doesn't make it any less true...

 

I got lucky. Wednesday afternoon as per my usual routine I filled the 7s tank at the local McEwens. I cringed at the $1.03/L I was paying, but since it was 2 cents cheaper than anywhere else (ethanol = 2c cheaper on wednesdays), I was happy enough for the time being.

Thursday morning the g/f and I left on a trip to Kingston in her car. We needed a tank of gas and $1.23 was the cheapest around. Twenty cents difference is crazy.

Last year at this time, when the g/f and I went on our trip to Quebec, gas was at 99.9c and I was effin' mad about it. With gas prices in Aylmer tonight being $1.30 and up, I feel my wallet getting lighter by the minute. When I open the mechanical secondaries I can see twonies flying out my tailpipe.

60L tank
* .20c/L increase
=
$12 per tank increase overnight

I expect gas prices to go up, yes. But I only started driving less than 5 years ago and I can remember gas prices being around the .60 mark.

Doubling the gas prices every five years, or increasing by 10%-20% every year (which seems to be the norm) is crazy.

When will the madness end?

Probably not soon. This is why I want to squeeze as much power out of an 87-octane burning N/A 12a as I can. I may not catch you turbo guys, but I currently get 400km/tank on highway.

Jon

 

I get almost twice that in my FC. Perhaps you should look to squeezing something built after 85...

 

You get almost 800kms/tank? That's above 30+US MPG. My NA was never even close to being that fuel effecient, of course I never did drive it gently I did manage to squeeze 438kms on a tank on the turbo with mostly cruise control at 120 km/hr.

As for what's the breaking point for not buying gas? Mine would be pretty high as my daily driver gets above 7ishL/100kms in the city and 5ishL/100kms in the highway. Of course the turbo RX-7 doesn't get as much road time. Thing is the increments of price increases are not bad, when taken account over a span of time, it's getting up there.

I realize that cheaper prices of gas or anything really from other countries are at the expense of something else.

Not even going to touch talking about politics as all it does is frustrates me to no end. They know that at least 1 guy in Calgary is frustrated at them *shrug*

 

Not quite.


700kms if I were to run the tank dry doing all highway driving. Daily driving, I'm regularly reaching (and exceeding) 450kms.


https://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php...8&postcount=45


And the thread: https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=212848

 

Damn, I just keep stumbling across these columns that explain it better than most (including me) ever could:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...2/1198598.html

 

My na FC runs about 28-30 mpg highway if I keep it in the 120-125km/h range, so while its no Firefly, it's not too painful - and can get 32 with the a/c if I keep it to 110, but then I have to run in the breakdown lane so 18 wheelers and cops aren't held up too much . I've probably never been less disappointed its not a turbo. Might be less inclined to take a long trip in it, like to Vancouver, now that prices are so high. I'll still drive it to work a couple of days a week because its all freeway for me, so city driving yields about the same mileage. So I haven't hit my threshold for limiting what I would consider pleasure driving in the 7 yet. On the other hand, I am trying to limit trips and plan better to do multiple errands on one trip to save on gas generally.

Most people can't do a whole lot to change their fuel use in the short to medium term (they're not about to break the 4 year lease on their suv that they're one or two years into, for example), and unless you live and work near major transit routes, that doesn't work for many. No doubt people will start looking at Smart cars and hybrids and smaller vehicles generally, but just like in the 70's and early 80's, we're going to see that it takes years for significant changes to occur in both buying habits and the mix of vehicles available from manufacturers.

All of which means, we won't see big-time drops in consumption, and therefore prices of fuel other than backing down some from the panic/shortage inspired current spike once refinery and pipeline operations get back in swing on the Gulf Coast. And since people will have less money due to higher gas prices, and higher prices on goods due to shipping costs, the post suggesting a recession is on the horizon is likely correct - at least in the retail sector, where people will scale back spending first.

 

Drove from Victoria to Calgary yesterday. OUCH!
Found a little price war in Aldergrove BC and filled up for $1.00.4/litre. In Revelstoke it was $1.14
Geez...and just 2 weeks ago I filled up here in Cochrane for .82/litre.

Well, if anarchy breaks out here, I live pretty close to a refinery....it'll be like the Mad Max movie. Gangs of RX-7 drivers attacking refineries for 'juice'.

 

You mean a rotary meet with a decent turn out? Sounds like science fiction to me.

 

I get 5.2 km/L in the city. (as evidenced by my last top up of 55 L after only having gone 287km...) If I am a bit easier on the throttle, I can bring that up to 6.4 km/L (which was 320km on 50 L. But that was cuz it was raining a lot that week...)

This means that if I let the tank get bone dry, (which is what...75 L?), I could go 390km on a tank, or 480 on a good day.

So at $1.49 for regular, that is about $1.64 for Ultra 94.
75 L x $1.64 = $123.00 to fill up. (only to have to do it all again after approx 400km)

I might have to take public transit to the niagara meet now

I heard gas was $1.70 in Peterborough the other day...So thats like $1.85 for Ultra 94...

w.....t.....f.....

 

Yet another. This one describes the real reason Ottawa is scared shitless of the oil boom and what it could mean for them, their friends and hangers-on. Pay particular attention to the fouth paragraph:


http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...4/1201536.html



So the higher the price of gas goes, the more likely the feds are to ignore the constitution and ram through an "emergency policy" (ie: another NEP or equivalent like Kyoto) and ultimately fanning the flames of Alberta separation until they are impossible to extinguish.

If we love Canada we'd all better hope the feds aren't stupid enough to try this, and if they are (and this is very likely the case) fight them tooth and nail.

Paul Martin's own words do nothing to suppress the suspicions that he intends to try just such an attack:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...4/1201537.html

 

Aviator, you're a smart guy, but your comments on Kyoto are way off base! The Liberals made it a total farce and there aren't any stiff challanges for the energy intensive oil patch OR Ontario manufacturers. We will be in violation of the Kyoto protocol. The current price at the pumps makes a reduction in fosil fuels even more urgent, not less. In a time of super hurricanes and high oil prices we need long term solutions, thus measures like Kyoto make sense.

As for NEP vs. Oil price in the early 80's:


Looking at that graph, it stands to reason that my suggestion was accurate and that blaming NEP for the crapping out of oil exploration wouldn't make a lot of sense. Were the oil prices high for a few years? Yes, but exploration and development are things that bear fruit for the future. If mass quantities of future supply wasn't required and prices were dropped as quickly as they rose, why would new investment occur?

Let's say for a moment that something like NEP II was implemented. Alberta currently makes $5B a year in oil revenues and I'd imagine that the sale split is something like 50% domestic/ 50% international. Due to the fact that there isn't really additional capacity elsewhere in the world, I don't see how it would hurt Alberta. Alberta cost itself billions through electricity privitization and ran a bunch of businesses under. For some reason no one cared. Let's say NEP II cost Alberta something like $500M a year. They've demonstrated that they can't tell the difference for something much larger so I don't see a problem.

 

[QUOTE=Snrub]

Aviator, you're a smart guy, but your comments on Kyoto are way off base! The Liberals made it a total farce and there aren't any stiff challanges for the energy intensive oil patch OR Ontario manufacturers.

It's true that the Liberals waded into Kyoto (and signed on without the consent of the provinces or even a viable plan of attack) like a bull in a china shop. As such, nothing regarding Kyoto is written in stone yet. But word has leaked from Ottawa that the Ontario and Quebec-based Canadian auto industries (close to home and rich in Liberal votes) will be exempt from the type of constraints and penalties that would be heaped on the oil industry, even though said industries are major polluters.

But while the feds don't have a plan or a clue this would not stop them from implementing some form of cash grab on the oil industry (ostensibly) to curb pollution. The real goal of course would be to keep Alberta from becoming too self-sufficient and in a position to resist the Liberals' personal whims.

Therefore, I don't think my Kyoto comments are that far off base at all. Never underestimate our federal government's willingness to make corrupt and self-serving decisions that don't make sense to anyone else.

We will be in violation of the Kyoto protocol.

And we have federally-appointed judges who can and will find ways to circumvent this protocol to serve their master's every whim. It's what they were appointed to do.

The current price at the pumps makes a reduction in fosil fuels even more urgent, not less.

No argument there. And the methods for doing this include but are not limited to funding and development of infrastructure for geothermal heating, solar power, wind turbines and non-fossil-based auto fuels. Said funding could come from measures such as (but not limited to) privatizing the CBC, axing the CRTC and gun control, ending corporate welfare and otherwise reducing government waste.

This funding would have to be carefully managed so that in order for companies to qualify for tax breaks and future development cost funding they would have to produce and sell to wholesale and retail customers a minimum volume of units rather than merely produce a couple of working prototypes. Otherwise it's just another useless form of corporate welfare.

But of course, this too is a long shot because we'd be asking our government to deliver something that they've never done before--- ethics, honesty and accountability to all Canadians.

In a time of super hurricanes and high oil prices we need long term solutions, thus measures like Kyoto make sense.

This is true, except for the Kyoto part. The measures in my previous paragraph are viable incentives. Kyoto is blackmail and recession-provoking.



As for NEP vs. Oil price in the early 80's:


Looking at that graph, it stands to reason that my suggestion was accurate and that blaming NEP for the crapping out of oil exploration wouldn't make a lot of sense.

This graph looks very familiar and accurate. Prices were high in the early '80s and then cratered in '86, two years after the NEP was repealed by Mulroney. So even if there was no NEP the oil industry would have tanked anyway a few years after Trudeau and company successfully blackmailed Alberta out of the market. Trudeau refused to pay world oil prices to Alberta and instead bought oil elsewhere at world prices. Without an immediate market to replace that lost by the NEP the oil industry in Alberta collapsed, selling off massive interests to foreign interests who chose not to produce oil here until it was again profitable).

During the time the NEP was in effect Alberta missed out on huge profits that would have made the difference when the world oil market tanked in '86-'87. So the NEP was what ultimately cost Albertans the most by a substantial margin, not the '86 price drop.

Were the oil prices high for a few years? Yes, but exploration and development are things that bear fruit for the future. If mass quantities of future supply wasn't required and prices were dropped as quickly as they rose, why would new investment occur?

Again, all true. But by the time this was an issue NEP had already raped Alberta and denied everyone living here four years worth of windfall profits that would have sustained us during the leaner years to follow.

Let's say for a moment that something like NEP II was implemented. Alberta currently makes $5B a year in oil revenues and I'd imagine that the sale split is something like 50% domestic/ 50% international. Due to the fact that there isn't really additional capacity elsewhere in the world, I don't see how it would hurt Alberta.

If Alberta were able to secure other makets for 100% of its oil (and the rest of Canada were supplied by middle-east suppliers rather than Alberta) this would be an understandable view.

But there are other ways to rape a province that's getting "too big for its britches": huge increases in transfer payments, reduction (or elimination) of partial re-imbersement of said transfer payments back into the province in question--- or huge penalties like a "carbon tax" could be as financially devastating to Alberta as the NEP was. Such an action would be enacted directly because of Alberta's oil revenues, and this is why Albertans refer to it as "another NEP-like raid." It wouldn't be "another NEP" per se, but the results would be equally devastating.

As for Alberta's perceived wealth, please re-read the first of two links I posted in post # 65 of this thread:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...1/1194817.html

The columnist very accurately explains (using real numbers) just what Alberta nets due to its oil revenues vs.what it gives and receives from Ottawa.


Alberta cost itself billions through electricity privitization and ran a bunch of businesses under. For some reason no one cared. Let's say NEP II cost Alberta something like $500M a year. They've demonstrated that they can't tell the difference for something much larger so I don't see a problem.

No argument that this was a boneheaded move on the part of the Alberta Tory government, and one that cost us dearly. But the NEP cost even more, even if it was only for four years vs. infinity (or until another government scraps it) for electricity privatization. Incidentally, the NEP was meant to be permanent by its mad-scientist creators Trudeau and Lalonde, and any future grabs by Ottawa will also be meant to last longer than the NEP did.

And we really are pissed off about electricity privatization. But not pissed off enough to vote for a Liberal party that would hand us to Ottawa on a silver platter--- or to ever again vote for Ralphie, who has served his purpose and is now unwilling to fight off the feds or to stab his buddies in big business by doing the right thing by indexing wages to inflation or halting run-away electricity, gas heating and insurance gouging.

The Alberta Alliance party seems poised to take the next provincial election and hopefully have more bite than bark vs. Ralphie and co, who have reduced themselves to being Liberals cross-dressing as fiscally-responsible Conservatives. The Alliance had better win and then make good on their promises because if they don't Alberta is hooped. Mexico will then be a retirement necessity rather than just an option.

 

So your basis for being anti-Kyoto is paranoia of a federal gov't conspiracy? Sorry I'm I'm not convinced.

IMO that link doesn't help the case you were trying to present. The only thing that surprised me was that it was $8.6B instead of $5B. That's a HUGE sum. Alberta spends the most per capita on health care, I'm not going to feel sorry that money is given elsewhere, the same thing happeneds to Ontario. The difference is that Alberta can more or less afford to do it. I also don't feel sorry for any companies who invested in the oil patch in expectation of future price hikes and had to wait 10 year before their sweet ROI started coming in.

As for NEP, if the writing was on the wall regarding the price of oil, I don't see any real reason to believe that it was the sole cause of economic decline. I see assertions, but not counterpoints. I mention the electricity privitization simply because it demonstrates that Albertans are more against the optics than the reality of helping the rest of Canada. If Albertans were pissed about it the issue wouldn't have died (like minor gafts like the gun registry). If it was truely a matter of selecting a lesser of evils Ralf would have been re-elected with a 5% approval rating. That was not the case. The Alberta Alliance only gets support as a protest vote like the green party. It's not due to a sincere desire for them.


Can you find the economic damaged caused by NEP on this graph? Night of long knives indeed.

 

As of 6pm Sunday the refineries of the gulf coast region were 95% back up to running and running at their previous levels of capacity. Have we seen this reflected in prices falling? Nope. Speculators are the bastards. Something has to change. Before too long we'll all be paying for gas before we purchase it like in most US cities because the number of drive-offs will increase tenfold.

Oh and the refining process for diesel is cheaper then regular petroleum. Diesel should be 10 cents per litre cheaper but since the boon of diesel vehicle popularity i.e. TDI's the oil companies and gas stations are just pulling another layer of wool over our eyes.

 

Actually, yes. That the % energy value added to GDP closely tracks GDP is no surprise, because as the largest sector in the Alberta economy, % energy value added is the biggest portion of GDP - in other words, graphing them against each other is not very insightful since one is a function of the other. It nevertheless shows the impact of the NEP, in that GDP$ is markedly low 1980 thru 1983, beginning to recover in 1984, despite the fact that oil prices reached their historic record highs in the period 1979-1982 - when you would therefore expect energy value added and GDP for Alberta to also reach high values. This can be attributed to the damage caused by the NEP. In fact, the recovery continues even through the price crash of the late '80s. This also lends credence to my earlier assertion that despite the fact that global energy markets were in the dumper in the late 80's, Alberta could go nowhere but up after the ravages of the NEP - economic growth occured despite a global price crash, because the economy had been so bad in Alberta under the NEP.

 

[QUOTE=Snrub]

So your basis for being anti-Kyoto is paranoia of a federal gov't conspiracy?

This particular potential government conspiracy is very easy to believe, especially if you're sitting on our side of the fence and especially when you consider our federal governments track record of introducing tax grabs for a particular purpose and then rolling them into that black hole known as "general revenue." Quite often, these grabs are introduced as being "only temporary."

I'm not against taking serious measures to curb pollutants and find alternate energy sources, even if the long term effect would mean less profit for Alberta's oil industry. (I'm hoping Alberta's new wind turbine, solar power and geothermal heating systems industries will take up at least some of the slack while diversifying our economy). What I am against is the current Kyoto system that does nothing to reduce air pollution but could succeed admirably in driving Alberta into recession--- and submission, so that we no longer have the financial resources to fight off this federal defacto dictatorship. Not that we expect any sympathy from those living east of the 100th meridian or anything. After all, envy comes naturally to those with more socialist and/ or communist leanings...



Sorry I'm I'm not convinced.

And there's no law saying you have to be. However, the facts speak pretty loudly to me.

IMO that link doesn't help the case you were trying to present. The only thing that surprised me was that it was $8.6B instead of $5B. That's a HUGE sum.

So is the 9.3B net difference between what Alberta gave Ottawa last year vs. what it got back, all of which was outlined in said link. This 9.3B is an amount that eclipsed Alberta's entire profit from oil last year(!) I'd say it represents my point quite clearly, especially the part about the contribution to Ottawa per Albertan ($2914) vs. per Ontarian, the 2nd-largest contributors ($1856).

Alberta spends the most per capita on health care

And every Albertan pays $44 per month on health care premiums. This is over and above our share of taxes paid to Ottawa that gets spent on health care. True, we spend more on health care (a flaw that could well be rectified not only here but in the entire country if deductibles for health care claims were high enough to reduce or eliminate abuse of the system, freeing up more funds for those in real need while reducing waiting lists), but those costs come out of the pockets of Albertans, not Canadians in other provinces. Besides, the fact that Albertans contribute more per capita than any other citizens to all causes including our health care system puts the whole argument into proper perspective.

I'm not going to feel sorry that money is given elsewhere, the same thing happeneds to Ontario.

True enough. But what gets taken from Ontario represents a much smaller percentage of the profits realized from Ontario's main industries. What gets taken from Alberta represents a full 110% of it's oil revenues. Suggesting that it's fair to take all of Alberta's oil revenue is tantamount to suggesting that it's fair for Ottawa to set your personal income tax rate at double what others in your income bracket pay. Yet this is what has been happening to Alberta and most in Ontario and Quebec are ok with this(?)

The difference is that Alberta can more or less afford to do it.

No. No, we can't, at least no more so than Ontario can. While our unemployment rate is the lowest in Canada (which is good) our standard of living is no better than that of Ontarians. Again, when the feds take the equivalent of all of Alberta's oil profits and then some it negates "oil wealth" as an excuse to further rob us blind. Besides, our debt-free status came at the expense of a huge infrastructure debt that other Canadian provinces couldn't stomach. In other words, we earned it. It's an interesting concept. Ottawa should try it sometime...

I also don't feel sorry for any companies who invested in the oil patch in expectation of future price hikes and had to wait 10 year before their sweet ROI started coming in.

Nobody's saying you should feel sorry for them. Like any wise investor, they took a very risky gamble and won. In other words, they worked for the profits now being realized--- profits on which they are obligated to pay their fair share of taxes. But to suggest that they now give the lions' share of it to Ottawa is ludicrous--- tantamount to the feds garnishing 60% of your hard-earned wages and giving it to your derelict next-door neighbour because " he's not as wealthy as you are."

These oil companies should not pay one percentage point more to Ottawa on their profits than Ontario-based Magna or Quebec-based Bombardier does. If these oil companies are as profitable as you claim, this fair rate would contribute very nicely to Ottawa's coffers. From that point on it's up to Ottawa to put it to good use for all Canadians rather than waste and steal it. If you're looking for a culpit here look no further than 24 Sussex Drive.

As for NEP, if the writing was on the wall regarding the price of oil, I don't see any real reason to believe that it was the sole cause of economic decline.

The oil price drop in '86 was a decline. The NEP was tantamount to falling off a cliff. Our economy (the oil industry, investment in it and the many businesses and industries that depended on the oil indudstry for their own survival) collapsed and many billions in profit were lost, money that would have made the '86 decline much more bearable. So the NEP wasn't the sole cause--- but it was the major cause and had the most devastating impact by a substantial margin.

I see assertions, but not counterpoints. I mention the electricity privitization simply because it demonstrates that Albertans are more against the optics than the reality of helping the rest of Canada.

Snrub, you sound like an intelligent guy and much of what you say is true and valid. Mentioning the electricity privatization gaff may be a valid point, but in this case it serves the same purpose as little Jimmy, after being caught with his hand in the cookie jar, pointing the finger at his brother and says "well he broke the vase last year!" In other words it's meant to deflect the issue and is beside the point--- but because you brought it up I'll address the issue (again) anyway:

First, Albertans are mad as hell about the privatization gaff, but what are we supposed to do? Separate from Alberta? (Yeah, that's the ticket--- we'd throw up a firewall around Calgary and then call it our new country ). All we can do is either move to the more socialist provinces in Canada or vote the bastards in Edmonton out of office. Many tried last time but Ralphie still won, albiet by a smaller margin than before. He doesn't have a hope in hell next time in fact, his own party may replace him before his mandate expires. Better late than never, but still...

But back to the issue of helping Canada: "Helping Canada" would be for every Albertan to give Ottawa the same $1856 per year that Ontarians do. After all, we enjoy the same standard of living that they do so it's only fair that we contribute as much as they do.

But what we currently have is Albertans contibuting $1856 per year each, and then having Ottawa pick us up by the ankles and shaking an additional $1058 out of our pockets. And now Ottawa is lustfully eyeing the options of wringing us out for even more. Tell me again how Alberta doesn't help Canada and why it's beneficial for us to continue to allow ourselves to get raped.

If Albertans were pissed about it the issue wouldn't have died (like minor gafts like the gun registry).

Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will ) but I believe what you meant to say here was that if Albertans were pissed about privatization it would have died. The reason that neither electricity privatization (provincial) nor the gun registry (federal) died was that a) not enough people realized the full financial scope of these moves when there was still time to stop them from happening and b) getting rid of them is a much more difficult task once they become entrenched.

If it was true ly a matter of selecting a lesser of evils Ralf would have been re-elected with a 5% approval rating. That was not the case. The Alberta Alliance only gets support as a protest vote like the green party. It's not due to a sincere desire for them.

True enough. But unfortunately not enough people fully understood the scope of Ralphie's gaffs at the last election or he would have lost--- not to the Alberta Liberals but to the Alliance. Instead, his vote losses (one of which was mine) still allowed him to win a majority. In spite of the damage that electricity privatization caused most Albertans understand that a vote for the Liberals would have been even more devastating. But things have changed here since the last election. The Conservatives may win the next provincial but Ralph won't be at the helm. Unfortunately one of his equally left-leaning cronies might be. Hopefully enough Albertans will realize the significance of this and not vote for either them or the Liberals.


Can you find the economic damaged caused by NEP on this graph? Night of long knives indeed

This graph shows Alberta's GDP from oil sales and the percentage of total GDP that oil sales represented from the years 1980 (when the NEP began) through 1995, when Alberta was still mired in debt but slowly beginning to dig itself out.

The problem is that it doesn't tell the whole story. First, it doesn't show the drop in % of GDP from 1979 and before, or the spike in world oil prices that took place during the time the NEP was in place--- a spike which Alberta missed out on because of the NEP.

But more importantly, it doesn't consider the huge percentage of GDP lost due to investment in oil production (which accounted for something like 25 to 30% of Alberta's total GDP before the NEP and then dissappeared overnight once the NEP was enacted) and the GDP lost due to the collapse of oil-dependant businesses and investments into same. All told, this meant a drop in GDP of around 40%, far more than the mere 1% depicted on the above graph. Since it takes considerably more than 60% of the total GDP to cover the expenses of a province or country it's easy to see how even a 20% drop can drive a province or country into recession, never mind 40%.

So now you know why the NEP was so devastating to Alberta and why we'd rather separate than face another equivalent hit.

 

Kyoto is just wealth redistribution, if anyone thinks it will actually reduce pollution, they are living in a dream world, in order for Kyoto to even make sense to those who choose to ignore the laughable context of its finer points, the Federal government reclassified C02 as a toxic pollutant, pretty funny considering its an inert naturally occuring gas, and in terms of green house gases its number 2 on the list of thermal gases, the first being water vapour, should we reclassify water vapour as toxic pollutant to just help pointless pacts protect 3rd world polluters?.. ...
The gun registry a minor gaff? It was and still is a **** up of gargantuan proportions, 2 BILLION PISSED AWAY....
Let me guess you voted Liberal.... ..
36 dead in Toronto this year due to shootings, working real well....The silence form Wendy Coukier is deafening these days..

 

Man, are you DEAD-ON. I won't deal with the incredible sham that is Kyota in this post (later) but as far as the gun-registry is concerned, it's clear Liberals can even refer to $2 Billion wasted as a "minor gaff." Guess if you get shot in Toronto these days, you should be consoled if the gun is "registered?" Guess Liberals would be.

Just got back from a trip to Atlanta and loved the radio hosts there. One refers to Liberalism as "a mental disease." Did that ever resonate with me. The best one that I have heard was last winter when a certain Canadian conservative remarked that it was so cold in Ottawa, Liberals had their hands in their own pockets.

 

When I got fed up with the gas prices, I bought a diesel. My VW Jetta gets over 1000+km every tank. FYI its for sale too

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=460212

 

Just out of curiosity, how many liters does the tank hold and what does it cost to fill at current prices for deisel? I'm assuming the tank size is much larger than that of other cars in the same size and weight category. And why sell it if you just recently bought it for its fuel economy?

 

I'm back in school and financially it's tough. I don't want to sell it, but I'm only working a few days a month, and I can't afford it. I was not approved for a education loan so I have to sacrifice the car.

I just passed a gas station and regular was 129/L. Diesel was 109/L. Thats still 20C cheaper then regular gas.

The tank is about 45L, no bigger than most.

 

maybe you should try us over the pond in the uk, we are at 1.85dollars per litre. And it just keeps rising Thats only for 95 octane, not the 98 stuff !

Shaun

 

I posted this in another thread but it's probably true here too:

* Rant On * I just wish people would stop whining and crying about the price of gas. Just pay the bill and shut up. If you can't afford the gas don't drive. It seems like just because it's oil and gas everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Do any of you know that the price of steel has doubled in the last six months? What do you think that does to the price of things you buy? Why don't you go out and say "stop buying steel products"? People will pay $10 for a pack of smokes and $20 for a case of beer but complain about the price of gas. All this whining and crying about "cutting the taxes" or "make the oil companies pay" is pointless. If you don't like what it costs you should use less. Sometimes I think we're (Canada) the biggest bunch of cry babies who want the government to solve all of our problems. *Rant Off*

 

Rant about your rant

You're forgetting that "we" are not just upset about the fact that our "toy rx-7" is now more expensive to run, but that some people have to drive long distances to and from work.

If you are a single parent living in Newmarket and drive to Toronto everyday, then this is a huge deal for you. Perhaps if the price had risen steadily over the last few years to allow people to adapt it wouldn't be so bad, but this sharp increase has put a lot of people in very precarious positions.

People cannot simply decide to use less of a commodity on a whim. They use what they use because they have to. Perhaps we should breath less too, in order to lower the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere.

And as for steel, I think the obvious difference can be found in the point you yourself just made. People don't know about the price of steel, so of course they aren't going to rant about it. Gas is something most people buy on a regular basis and the price is displayed right up front when you buy it. How can you compare the two?

Natural inflation people can deal with. A lot people work at jobs which offer cost of living increases on an annual basis to offset this, but large spikes in any market will spark an outcry. If diapers doubled in price tomorrow, don't you think mothers across the nation would rise up and speak out against it?

Regardless of whether voicing ones opinion can actually change the situation, it is human nature to want to feel like you are trying to make a difference, instead of rolling over and dying.

I for one will continue to purchase gas because thats what makes my car move, but I don't have to be happy about the price I am paying for it. If the governement all of a sudden put a "rice tax" on modded vehicles, tripling the cost of performance parts, I would stop modding my car. But that is a choice I can make. Buying gas to power my vehicle, which is necessary for me to function is not my choice. (Or at least, it is not much of one).

You can say you are sick and tired of people whining about the price of gas. Did you ever think that maybe people are tired of people telling them to "suck it up"?

Rant about your rant concluded.
*note - not a flame, just a counter-point*