Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Hit the road

Interesting story from the Canadian Press. Greenie Stevie says top off the tank of that SUV and burn, baby, burn that sweet, sweet crude!

Canada won't follow Bush on reducing oil consumption: Harper

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada won't follow the Bush administration's lead in setting hard targets for reducing oil consumption, but will instead impose tougher emissions standards on the auto sector and other industries, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.


I’m all for toughening emission standards and other measures, but why the heck shouldn’t we also encourage people to use less energy? Come to think of it, that’s the first of the three Rs. Reduce.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers


Anonymous said...

The answer to that question may be found in the secret meeting between the in-coming Harper government and Big Oil in the States.
Junior is throwing a pap to his dwindling electorate, but he and Harper have a plan, and that plan talks about a North American Union, deep integration, hence Harper crowing on the world stage about being a superpower.
Harper's dreams will be dashed: he may think he's leading the charge but once his greasing of the wheels has accomplished the aim, Harper will be thrown under the bus, churned under the wheels of this new entity North American Union.
History speaks: the greasers of wheels are ALWAYS used as more grease in the end.
Bush has likely gone postal, and Harper is not far behind.
It's probably best for Canadians' psyche that Harper gets shown up for the traitor he is and that the people of Canada know how sold down the river we've become, but I doubt that will stop the juggernaught that Harper & Co. have allowed to be put in motion.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Bible prophesy tell of traitors and turncoats being part of the fall?
At this point, even if Harper is turfed from his lofty position (merely saving him from a frightful end ala Saddam) it will not likely turn the tide that his malfeasance has powered.
Canada is in for the ride of its life, and it's going to take every man woman and child of proper thinking and good intentions to halt it.
I think it's gotten too far already to stop. Welcome to 1984 folks. Brush up on your new-speak.
It's going to take more than one good leader from Canada to turn this tide. You all heard the SU address yesterday... no indication of steering a different path. So, to the end of this story we go.
Personally, I'd rather go down fighting than have someone like Harper sell us out then roll over and pee.
Time to bring our people home from wars elsewhere: Canada has bigger fish to fry right here.

Jay said...

Thats the conservative way, put everything on the consumers shoulders and give big oil a free ride.

Saskboy said...

I thought you might have been talking about the last show of On The Road Again on CBC, which is recently canceled now.

Tim Webster said...

Why is Canada NOT going to reduce its oil consumption?

The US is going to reduce its dependence on Middle east oil by turning northern Alberta into a moon scape at more than 3 times or more the current rate. This 3 times is not just a figure out of my head. This is already planned.

One important way to reduce oil consumption is to improve transportation efficiency.

Why it has taken people SO long to figure out that cities need to be build for people.

The burbs are build for cars. And they do an excellent job of making sure your car can enjoy everyday zipping about on roads. The parking lots of stores located beside each other are fenced off, so that your car gets enjoy driving out on to the road and in to the next parking lot.

Solution transit hubs. Drive your car to the shopping center, transit, office hub. Park it and take a bus, train to another hub. Better still buy a condo over looking the hub's community park and sell your car.

But wait builders need to stop building houses, and start building communities. Until that happens enjoy your lonely time driving and getting fat in the burbs. Every day your car meets lots of cars, but you never meet new people.

Actually it is kind of strange North America has lots of land, but there is no land to build these communities. The land is covered with houses and it is virtually impossible to find enough space to build a hub anywhere but in the middle of some farmer's field. Solution is simple take a few city blocks around shopping centers and turn them into hubs. Even this is very difficult, because land price speculation and single hold out owners will kill redevelopment. An other solution is for the city governments to take over ownership of land. Home owners own their house, but rent their land. Much like property taxes, but urban redevelopment is not prevented by land price speculation and hold out owners. This seams to work quite well in Hong Kong. Give up you can't fight this. Get in your car, drive to the store and buy some chips and beer. Better get yourself piss drunk at least that way it won't hurt so to know you are destroying the world and yourself.

Wait the moment we start building hubs witch don't require cars, car sales will go down the the economy will fail. WRONG!!! Making a luxury into an necessity only increases the cost of living. The massive construction boom caused by building these hubs will more than make up for the lost car sales. But it will hurt the car industry. I am forgetting your love your car. Can't let anything happen to your car. Give it up, get out more, meet some people and save the world with less green house gases and less fighting over oil.

To everyone BELIEVES CARES=FREEDOM I say!!!!

IS YOUR FREEDOM THE ONLY FREEDOM THAT MATTERS!! What about the freedom of others?!?

In American Suburbs you are 100% correct Cars = freedom. But making a luxury a necessity is NOT freedom. It simply increases the cost of living, making America less competitive. In Asia where a car is a luxury, the car ownership is not part of labor costs. As a result the cost of working is about $8000 USD less per worker.

Why do cars equal freedom, it is simple. It seams I have to keep repeating the same thing over and over again because people don't want to get it.

1) They really really love their cars. So the cities must be build for cars, forget about people they are not important.
This is why cars=freedom
2) Being forced to use cars everywhere gives people more opportunity to show off their lovely cars.
This is great because this means you free to show off your SUV even to people who would rather you stop burning oil.
3) They have never had a chance to experience a transit based waking community.
As long as you think cars=freedom I can safely say that you have NOT experience a transit based walking community.
4) Think transit is for poor people and second class people. And they don't want to be considered poor or second class.
This is what you really mean when you say "cars=freedom", I think.
5) Hell you can't build a city with out lots of roads and parking lots. How can I drive my car there. This makes me laugh!!
You make me cry. People like you are the reason for many of our problems.

I have a strong opinion. You may not agree, but you need to think about this because things are going to change. And if we don't take action to control the change now, we are going to find ourselves in DEEP, when the change is force upon us, by oil wars, climate change, or just plain national debt resulting from our high cost of living.

Anonymous said...

Fret none or very little.
Harper has said he's admired and been inspired by Jane Jacobs... so in the VERY (-2050) near future one can expect the Harper government to roll out a green plan and a plan for urbs, burbs and rural areas which will benefit all Canadians! Good news, eh.

Tim Webster said...

Actually Jane says that cities need a certian issoliation from the surrounding area. This is true, but cities also need to be feed by the surrounding area.

I don't believe Jane put enough attention on transit hubs collecting from the surrounding area. And that transit hubs are actually in fact part of the city.

I need to read all her work, but I also think I disagree about, how land and property should be owned. Please see my points about property vs land ownership.

Individual land ownership make senses for farmers who tend the land. In fact this rule of land ownership by the care takers of the land needs to apply to cities too. House owners DON'T care for the land. If you think paving over your front lawn to park your car is caring for land. Then your "rights" as a care taker of land need to be taken away.

"Land ownership is where a large portion of peoples' wealth is found." In places like Vancouver, Manhattan, Hong Kong, ...., it is not land ownership, but property ownership. People do invest in their future by taking care of their property by taking care of their community, through building committees. As a side point this is why elected local community, building counsels are good for the community.

This is in fact a much better model because it encourages people to take care of not only their personal home, but the surrounding area which really sets the value of their property. Personal land ownership in cities only kills redevelopment, forcing cities to constantly acquire new farmer's fields for development. The farmers are not complaining because selling your field for suburban development is like striking gold. And it is striking gold for the original developer too until the suburb requires redevelopment. But this time the original developer has made his/her profit and no longer cares. You can see how bad a model it truly is. Even when the old suburbs require redevelopment it is impossible. As a result over time they slid into slums invested with crime. Because no one takes care of the place if the place you live in is a slum. It would be better if the place could be destroyed so it can finally be redeveloped as required. So slum dwellers destroying their own neighborhoods are doing the only thing that makes since. Because redevelopment is required.

Depending how Stephen Harper views Janes work. He may think that cities and the surrounding area need a firewall between them. This is not true.

I very much doubt given Stephen's suburban background that he supports property ownership over land ownership in the urban setting.

Tim Webster said...

Cities need to reach out into the surrounding area through transit hubs. Rather than surrounding area running through the city with 6 and 8 lane freeways. The transit hubs are part of the city. As a result the golden hourse shoe connected by transit hubs is in effect a mega city.

Bact to my orginal point. Every place you see a major shopping center. There probably should have been a transit hub build there instead. Now these shopping centers need to be rebuild into transit hubs and individual "house" land ownership is a major problem.

I would reather the city own the land, because it is really the city that give the land value. Alternately transit corporations could own the land in and around transit hubs as is down in Hong Kong. Transit is what makes the hubs part of the city. Which in turn increases the value of the land the hubs are build on.

A BCer in Toronto said...

I thought you might have been talking about the last show of On The Road Again on CBC, which is recently canceled now.

I did see that story, I was actually surprised to learn that show hadn't been canceled 20 years ago.

bigcitylib said...


Considering that Bush is actually asking for a 20% cut in projected use, not current use, Harper is really committed to doing nothing, since the actual cuts from current levels in the Bush proposal are quite minimal. I name check your post, and have a lovely picture of the developing Alberta moonscape, back at BCLSB.

Anonymous said...

"The answer to that question may be found in the secret meeting between the in-coming Harper government and Big Oil in the States"

Apparently you missed the fact that Paul Martin set up this meeting and Cabinet Minister John McCallum, a Liberal attended.

And oh yeah,Harper was sworn in Feb. 5, 2006.Do the math.

"Thats the conservative way, put everything on the consumers shoulders and give big oil a free ride"

Again, don't let the facts get in the way.From 1993 until 2004 Liberal's had majority governments,and a minority until 2006.And it was the Liberal's who gave big oil the tax incentives in the mid 90's. So tell me how Conservatives put it on consumers shoulders all those years.