South of the border, U.S. President George W. Bush -- who finds himself in a mid-term election fight where motor fuel prices are a major issue -- also recently caught the ethanol bug.
He sees a sharp increase in American ethanol production as a way of weaning Americans off their dependence on foreign crude oil supplied by countries who often don't have the United States' best interests at heart.
Bush's sudden conversion to "alternate" fuel sources is more political and strategic than the reason Ambrose is now on the bandwagon.
First of all, unlike the United States, Canada is awash in liquid petroleum. Security of supply is not an issue.
And while it's true that ethanol burns cleaner than oil-based gasoline, if the federal Tories are using the ethanol argument as a replacement for the deeply flawed Kyoto agreement, then they really should do the math.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Editorial/2006/05/27/pf-1601455.html
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on May 30, 2006]
Note: http://www.winnipegsun....

Ahhh...
So then why are we paying for it like we are Americans?
If supply and demand really do control prices, why then are we getting our pocketbooks raped every time we fill the tank?
If the supply is there in abundance, then prices should in fact be low, yes?
Sounds like somebody, somewhere, is full of something that smells a lot like an easily shovelled methane source found on farms and grazing pastures.
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush
This concern is due to Iran having the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia and Canada, and the second-largest proven natural gas reserves, after Russia.
U.S. sanctions forbid American companies and their foreign subsidiaries to conduct business with Iran, and the United States does not import any Iranian oil or gas. But any U.S. military action against Iran's nuclear program would be expected to have an immediate effect on world energy prices.
So we pay now for something that might or might not happen in the future.
Not due to a lack of oil which there is not.
There is in fact lots of oil to last our life time and our grand kids time but we do not have the facilities to produce the gasoline, natural gas etc. due to the rise of world consumption which is out pacing the world suppliers ability to supply.
---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.
Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.
<br />
Hi gas prices may be a pain, but there is far worse going on down in the States, and now that we have elected Bush's "Best Friend" in Stephen Harper, I'm not liking Canada's chances.<br />
<br />
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=92">http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=92</a><br />
<br />
Check it out, well worth it.
<br />
<a href="http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/margin.htm">http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/margin.htm</a><br />
<br />
Gas price increases are greater than the demand for oil alone can explain. This is because the big oil companies colluded in the 1970s and agreed to restrict refining capacity. Although collusion on price is illegal, collusion on refining capacity is not. In California alone, 18 of 32 refineries have been closed down in the last 20 years - thats nearly half of the state's refining capacity.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12652455/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12652455/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/tombraider/21.html">http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/tombraider/21.html</a><br />
<br />
Price increases in general have outstripped production increases in Canada since 1967 simply because the most important restrictions on banking were removed in that year. Interest limits were raised from 6% to 60%, Banks were given permission to issue mortgages, and the reserve requirements (money on hand to loans given out) was greatly reduced.<br />
<br />
The biggest blow was in the 1990s when the last limitations on Banking involvement in stocks, bonds, and other investments were virtually eliminated. We are now in almost exactly the same situation as we were just before the stock market crash - but with MORE debt...<br />
<br />
"The second step [the first being banking reform] we have taken in the restoration of normal business enterprise has been to clean up thoroughly unwholesome conditions in the field of investment. In this we have had assistance from many bankers and businessmen, most of whom recognize the past evils in the banking system, evils in the sale of securities, evils in the deliberate encouragement of stock gambling, evils in the sale of unsound mortgages. Evils in many other ways in which the public lost billions of dollars. They saw that without changes in the policies and methods of investment there could be no recovery of public confidence in the security of savings. The country now enjoys the safety of bank savings under the new banking laws, the careful checking of new securities under the Securities Act and the curtailment of rank stock speculation through the Securities Exchange Act. I sincerely hope that as a result people will be discouraged in unhappy efforts to get rich quick by speculating in securities. The average person almost always loses. Only a very small minority of people of this country believe in gambling as a substitute for the old philosophy of Benjamin Franklin that the way to wealth is through work."<br />
<br />
Franklin Roosevelt Radio Address September 30 1934<br />
<br />
---
My freedom is more important than your great idea.
– Anonymous