[Benoit]

Environmentally-wise, the problem is not cheap gas, it is the total freedom to change the quality of air, water and soil outside your own property.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I spend about US$70 per week on gas now. I'll say that it isn't bothering me so much in that traffic is noticeably lighter on the roads lately and due to that my mileage is higher and my commute time is about half or even less of what it had been six months ago.

I'd support an increase in gas taxes now because it would get even more low income people off the roads and onto public transit where they belong thus freeing up the roads for people who can afford to drive and pay taxes to subsidize public transit.

/\/\/\/\

Can't wait to see the liberal reaction to that!

Sounds good to me. But carrying the argument to its logical end, anyone who doesn't have a car should be paying far, far less for roads (which I believe come out of general provincial revenues currently). On the balance, those without cars are probably subsidizing you (through roads, traffic cops, bridges, etc) more than you are subsidizing them (through transit).

To my mind roads (and costs associated with roads) should be paid for through gas taxes and subtracted from income tax.

Anyone who doesn't have a car does pay far less for roads. In BC (at least) the amount of money raised in vehicle registration and property taxes along with taxes on fuel do not equal the amount spent on roads. Not nearly. Fuel taxes subsidize transit (ferries and buses - excellent buses, I'll concede) but the net result is that these taxes subsidize the general fund, the general fund does not subsidize roads.

[BartSimpson]

Benoit Benoit:

Environmentally-wise, the problem is not cheap gas, it is the total freedom to change the quality of air, water and soil outside your own property.

Then we should ban everything that emits anything. Including people.

[Benoit]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Benoit Benoit:

Environmentally-wise, the problem is not cheap gas, it is the total freedom to change the quality of air, water and soil outside your own property.

Then we should ban everything that emits anything. Including people.

No, those who pollute relatively more should compensate those who pollute relatively less.

[mtbr]

Benoit Benoit:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Benoit Benoit:

Environmentally-wise, the problem is not cheap gas, it is the total freedom to change the quality of air, water and soil outside your own property.

Then we should ban everything that emits anything. Including people.

No, those who pollute relatively more should compensate those who pollute relatively less.

you have a lot of compensating to do.

[Benoit]

mtbr mtbr:

Benoit Benoit:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Benoit Benoit:

Environmentally-wise, the problem is not cheap gas, it is the total freedom to change the quality of air, water and soil outside your own property.

Then we should ban everything that emits anything. Including people.

No, those who pollute relatively more should compensate those who pollute relatively less.

you have a lot of compensating to do.

Global Justice is about universalizing the Canadian equalization formula.

[Toro]

Benoit Benoit:

Toro Toro:

Good article.

I've always said that if you are a true environmentalist, you should want $200-$300 oil. To say that we should do something about global warming then complain about the price of energy is more than a tad hypocritical.

Pay attention: Non-corrupted persons should insist to pay for gas only what is necessary to cover its production and distribution costs that are around $30/baril, nothing more.

That's a bad idea.

Prices signal the allocation of capital to an industry. The higher the price and the higher the return, the more capital that will be channeled to alternative investments such as wind and power. For example, Boone Pickens, who has made a fortune in oil, is now the largest independent owner of wind farms, and plans to build the largest wind farm ever, investing $500 million of his own money into the project. There are literally tens of billions of dollars flowing into all sorts of alternative energy sources. And the reason why that is happening is because oil is over $100 a barrel. It would not happen if oil was $30.

Insisting that we should only pay the costs of oil is not only bad for the environment, it is horrible economics.

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I spend about US$70 per week on gas now. I'll say that it isn't bothering me so much in that traffic is noticeably lighter on the roads lately and due to that my mileage is higher and my commute time is about half or even less of what it had been six months ago.

I'd support an increase in gas taxes now because it would get even more low income people off the roads and onto public transit where they belong thus freeing up the roads for people who can afford to drive and pay taxes to subsidize public transit.

/\/\/\/\

Can't wait to see the liberal reaction to that!

Sounds like a good idea to me. Less cars on the road is exactly what the world needs. It kinda pisses me off seeing so many people driving their cars everywhere, and the driver is the only person in the car.

I think that if you are a city dweller who lives in a city with good public transportation, don't often leave the city and don't need to transport goods anywhere on a daily basis, you have no business driving at all. It's just sheer laziness, physically and mentally.

[Benoit]

Toro Toro:

Benoit Benoit:

Toro Toro:

Good article.

I've always said that if you are a true environmentalist, you should want $200-$300 oil. To say that we should do something about global warming then complain about the price of energy is more than a tad hypocritical.

Pay attention: Non-corrupted persons should insist to pay for gas only what is necessary to cover its production and distribution costs that are around $30/baril, nothing more.

That's a bad idea.

Prices signal the allocation of capital to an industry. The higher the price and the higher the return, the more capital that will be channeled to alternative investments such as wind and power. For example, Boone Pickens, who has made a fortune in oil, is now the largest independent owner of wind farms, and plans to build the largest wind farm ever, investing $500 million of his own money into the project. There are literally tens of billions of dollars flowing into all sorts of alternative energy sources. And the reason why that is happening is because oil is over $100 a barrel. It would not happen if oil was $30.

Insisting that we should only pay the costs of oil is not only bad for the environment, it is horrible economics.

Environmentally-wise, the problem is not cheap gas, it is the total freedom to change the quality of air, water and soil outside your own property.

[Can2]

If you really want to save the planet stop having babies.
If you really want to lower CO2 support nuclear.
Otherwise, quit complaining because your just here for the ride.

[Benoit]

Can2 Can2:

If you really want to save the planet stop having babies.

You are missing your target big time: It is the desperately poor who are having babies and they are not connected to internet.

[dog77_1999]

Benoit Benoit:

Can2 Can2:

If you really want to save the planet stop having babies.

You are missing your target big time: It is the desperately poor who are having babies and they are not connected to internet.

I am pretty sure alot of people who are connected to the internet are having babies. You should tell everyone you know to stop having kids. Though you'll get alot of angry women throwing things at you.

[Benoit]

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

Benoit Benoit:

Can2 Can2:

If you really want to save the planet stop having babies.

You are missing your target big time: It is the desperately poor who are having babies and they are not connected to internet.

I am pretty sure alot of people who are connected to the internet are having babies. You should tell everyone you know to stop having kids. Though you'll get alot of angry women throwing things at you.

We'll get a lot of worry generals for not being able to replace their soldiers.

[cheryl08]

I think Dion is trying to lead his campaign in a completely different direction from the priorities that Canadian citizens have right now.
Canadians want to see some changes in the economy and social policy, I don't think environmental taxes are what the country needs at the moment. Gas prices are already drilling holes in peoples pockets, i don't think that they need to be higher.
And it's slightly hypocritical to try and promote a greener Canada when you have the west drilling oil and being one of the largest exporters of oil in the world

Carbon tax.....I'm just not buying it
The Liberal party needs a new leader.

[mtbr]

Yes, but you'll vote Liberal anyway