[Reverend Blair]

We're also just lazy and spoiled. I know a lot of people who drive two blocks to pick up a pack of smokes, even if they have to warm up the car for fifteen minutes before the trip. I know a lot people (actually they are often the same ones) who think they should be able to wear shorts in their houses in the winter. We live in Winnipeg, put on a sweater and turn the thermostat down. I think the crooked politicians and our carelessness just make things worse. We could do a lot better if people would change their attitudes.

[Kory Yamashita]

The real crucial point, IMHO, is that oil and automotive industries are so heavily subsidized by consumers. I'm talking about government-sponsored highways. I don't have a problem with the government paying for our roads, but I think more of the money should come from large companies that make billions off our infrastructure and less of it should come from the average citizen. Petroleum products should be pro-rated to reflect their actual cost, from extraction to bi-product waste disposal. Yes we're lazy. But thankfully, we're also cheap. And that will be our saving grace when the oil runs out and *crosses fingers* if the environment hasen't already collapsed by then, we may actually achieve a sustainable level of consumption... until the next abundant energy source is harnessed.

[Reverend Blair]

We should cut subsidies to the oil companies. The problem is that without those subsidies the price would go up drastically. While that isn't a bad thing environmentally, any government who causes that to happen will not be around long in the present political climate. It becomes self-defeating pretty quickly. What we need to do is change the way people think. I was a kid during the energy shortage of the seventies...people really were beginning to change the way they thought...lights went out, thermostats went down, and cars got smaller...then conservation became politically unpopular. The ads and the programs and the incentives went away, people reverted to being wasteful.

[sthompson]

With Kyoto there are some new programs aimed at conserving in Canada, aren't there? eg if you have them come take a look at your home at judge it's efficiency, or if you put in a new energy efficient furnace, etc.

We could easily get started on a discussion about gas-guzzling SUVs here as well, since the proportion of people who actually need 4X4 is more rural and much smaller than the current market for those monsters.

But I mainly want to say that the decision to up "production" (ie taking the oil out of the ground, since they don't exactly make it) (and not to reduce consumption) of oil seems to me to also be a conscious decision on the part of certain people--mainly oil companies and the politicians who pander to them (eg Ralph Klein). The way I understand it, in Alberta for example, they (AEUB, the companies, etc) know the conventional reserves are being depleted but the plan is to get as much oil out as they can until it's no longer profitable--meaning they up production in the immediate future. Even though this means that prop sharing kicks in under NAFTA, and we're on the hook for more exports. The smart thing to do IMHO would probably be to keep production at a certain level and therefore keep the oil around longer, while also starting to conserve more. But that would mean not getting as much of those giant profits in the next decade or two from the increase in sales (esp to the US) and the increase in price as demand continues to increase and supplies get lower.

In that case, it's not careless at all, but a specific strategy that ignores long-term consequences (environmental and social) in favour of short-term profits. The guys getting rich of off the upcoming oil shortage won't care if the regular folks can't afford to heat their homes or drive their cars, in other words.

This probably goes double for the US, where the most recent energy policy (2001) also promises to up production and doesn't focus much on reducing consumption.

People's apathy just makes this more possible.

[Kory Yamashita]

In the spirit of maximizing short term profits, I think it's important to look at Alberta as a whole. What they're doing right now is depleting the oil fields. The more production over a shorter period leads to the greatest profits, because of infrastructure and such. But once the oil runs out, then what? Prices skyrocket. And suddenly there's our boy Ralphy sitting on a gold mine... well, oil sands to be more precise. The cost of extracting oil from oil sands isn't ridiculously high. It's only a small percentage jump up from extracting our petroleum from underground oil reserves. So when prices skyrocket due to high demand, and news of an oil shortage (perceived lack of supply), the alternate oil sources will jump at the opportunity to maximize THEIR profits. They will charge ridiculous prices for it because people will be WILLING to pay for it. Feed the addiction!!! Sorry, I'm bitter as usual. And I DO realize that the oil sands will run out quickly too at this type of consumption rate. A conservative approach would be intelligent and logical, as Susan mentioned. But lets be honest here. It's the least profitable.

[Reverend Blair]

How come all these Conservatives don't seem really interested in conserving anything?


Susan mentioned SUVs. Those are a pet peeve of mine, not least because the drivers seem incapable of using their mirrors. Susan also mentioned that most of the SUVs are used in an urban environmtn. They are...most only turn on the 4 wheel drive during a snowstorm.

I keep hearing how SUVs are safer. I find that funny because I've been around pick-up trucks all my life and I've seen how they come apart when something happens. SUVs are basically trucks and are only required to meet the safety standards of trucks.

There's also been a trend back to bigger engines in the last decade or so. People think they need the power. I find that really funny because I've had cars with big engines....the engines people make up stories about. I think the ultimate was a Mustang Mach I. Crazy fast, like driving a bullet. You know what my favourite car was? A Triumph Spitfire with a 1500 cc four cylinder.


We've definitely been sold a bill of goods. The non-safety of SUVs makes us feel safe and we need that huge power. We must have 4wd because it might snow. We swallowed all that though...hook, line, and sinker. We want to believe so badly, as a society, that we are willing to pay extra out of our pockets and ignore the real costs.

[Kory Yamashita]

The worst part about SUV's isn't that they're big and guzzle fuel. The worst part is that there's rarely more than one person in them. I don't have stats to back that up but I spend a lot of time on the bus gazing out the window at the vehicles passing by (I find it insulting that they expect to be in complete privacy while travelling, but that's another story). I'd say roughly 1 in 20 vehicles that I see during rush our have more than one person in them, excluding transit. It's more noticeable in SUV's than other vehicles too. And as for safety, SUV's are WAY more safe in a city than a car. Just look at accidents between SUV's and cars. The SUV will lose a bumper, the car will lose a driver and two passengers. And in the city, you're a lot more likely to hit another vehicle than you are to roll it. I was with my dad in his 88 Bronco and we got in an accident with a chevette or something like that. The car was just about toast, the truck just lost a bumper. SUV's are disgusting. And they're totally subsidized by regular taxpayers. We as a society are burdened with the carbon monoxide/dioxide and nitrogen dioxide , which leads to acid rain. We all pay for SUV's. What a joke!

[Reverend Blair]

SUVs are only safer when crushing smaller cars though Kory. When in an accident with a vehicle the same size, something increasingly common since they've become so popular, they offer less protection. Here's something to keep in mind if you own an SUV or truck, especially an older one. If you are about to hit something lift up your feet. The floors have a habit of buckling and ripping feet off. These vehicles do have their purposes. I have two pick-ups in my driveway right now. One is an eight cylinder 3/4 ton that gets used for hauling heavy loads and rarely moves. The other is a six cylider that can haul a camper or props/equipment for work. I have to keep them both plated (a car too) so they can be used when needed. I think something that might encourage people to at least drive more fuel efficient vehicles is if they could buy a blanket insurance and extra set of plates that covered more than one vehicle. If you have to pay mega-insurance on two or three vehicles, you are unlikely to own anything but the one that does the most. Why can't we buy insurance based on the most expensive and have it cover everything?

[Dr Caleb]

I gotta agree with you Sus, Rev and Kory. SUV's are a waste of steel.<p> I've been driving Ford 'Panther' platforms for about 10 years, and I'd never own an SUV. I used to own a little Suzuki, but the first accident it was in got it totaled. Panthers are the largest volume model on the road right now, but most people wouldn't know them, because they mostly ignore them.<p> Police cars, cabs etc are all 'Panthers'. Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincon Town Town cars are all based on the Panther Platform. It's the only sedan that will take a 100km/h impact from the rear from a 3/4 ton truck and the passengers have a 90% survival rate. 95% if you're in the front. I also get better highway fuel economy than my sisters Ford Focus.<p> And they're made in Canada.<p>

[Poz]

Reverend Blair, I really like your idea of a blanket vehicle insurance it would likely make a big impact on vehicle emissions (though Im sure the insurance companies would not be happy).

[Reverend Blair]

We're blessed with government insurance in Manitoba, Poz. I think that could be an excellent tool for meeting Kyoto goals, at least provincially. It allows a lot of things that would be fought by private insurance. I didn't know about the safety aspect of the Crown Vics etc, Dr. Caleb. I knew they got exceptionally good gas mileage for their size and power, but didn't know how good. Here's something kind of weird...My '82 Dodge pick-up (slant 6 motor designed before I was born) gets slightly better gas mileage in the city than my '94 Olds with it's modern technology. The Dodge sucks for power, but so does the Olds.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Reverend Blair] Here's something kind of weird...My '82 Dodge pick-up (slant 6 motor designed before I was born) gets slightly better gas mileage in the city than my '94 Olds with it's modern technology. The Dodge sucks for power, but so does the Olds. [/QUOTE] <p> It's all about torque bud. Those slant 6's have the torque to get the pick-me-up to speed easier and with less rpm that the Olds 6 (?) bangers. With all it's plastic body panels and over head cams and fuel injection, the Olds is better at highway speed, but the truck does what it's built for - low end torque!<p> There's been a lot of talk about Panthers being <a href='http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/CrownVic/Index.html'>fire</a> hazards, and causing 18 deaths of Law enforcement officers since the mid 90's. Of course, with Panthers being the most used vehicle for law enforcement, they are bound statistically to have more accidents and more fatal ones. Ford did extensive <a href='http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/images/CVcrushzone.jpg'>crash</a> <a href='http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2316.html'>tests</a> over the last couple years, to appease the <a href='http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/pressrelease_ford_test.html'>Dallas</a> PD, who are <a href='http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/vic19_20030719.htm'>suing Ford</a> for the death of 2 officers. They found that at 60mph, with a 6500 pound vehicle in an off center impact, the vehicle spilled less than 1 ounce of fuel. The back end was mangled up to the rear doors, but very little fuel got out of the tanks. <a href='http://www.fhp.state.fl.us/html/photogallery/PG041103.html'>95% </a> survivable, with minor injuries. I love my cars!<p> I get about 8 l/100 km highway, 12 l/100km city, 10.4 combined in my '92 (~25mpg, 18 mpg and 23mpg respectively) with a 200 hp 4.6 DOHC. In my 2003, I get roughly the same, but the 4.6 is <a href='http://kennybrown.com/Conversions/MarauderS/Gallery.html'>pushing 500 ponies</a>. <p> Ain't technology wonderful!<p>

[Milton]

To get back to oil, the tarsands are not as cheap an oil source as you might think. When I say cheap I am talking resources used as well as money. King Ralph subsidizes the beegeezus out of all phases of the oil recovery process. Getting 1.5 barrels of tarsands oil takes one barrel of oil worth of energy. If you add in the environmental damage done, (and they never do when they are adding up costs), it is even less attractive as an energy source. As of June, 2003 they, (Suncor), estimated that, ( around Fort MacMurray, Alberta), there were 315 billion barrels of recoverable tarsands oil with 175 billion barrels of this being economically feasible to recover with current technology.

[Kory Yamashita]

Milton, technology will make oilsands more economically feasible as they are exploited more and more. I don't see how this can help with environmental concerns, though.

[Reverend Blair]

Oilsands become more economically feasible as the price of oil rises too. As we run down the easy to get at sources, we increasingly look at the harder to get at ones. There is a great reluctance to look at reality though...we're working harder to poison ourselves quicker. Pretty bizarre behaviour.

I heard something about methane gas well in Alberta on CBC radio today. I had to get out of the car, so I don't know much except that Ralph seemed to have P#$%ed off some farmers. I was wondering if somebody could fill me in a bit.