The Rants of Issachar

The average price at the pump in Canada was somewhere around $1.07 per litre last week, and I paid $1.17 yesterday.

So of course we have the usual complaints, and Prime Minister Harper says that aside from the cut to the GST, they won't be cutting taxes on gasoline.

Today, the Vancouver Sun reports that NDP leader Jack Layton is demanding lower gas prices.

"Working families are getting gouged at the pumps at the same time as the oil and gas companies have record profits"†

Granted, no one likes to pay more for anything, but does anyone else see the contradiction in Mr. Layton's, (and some other people's), objection to high gas prices?

Doesn't Mr. Layton want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Wasn't it the NDP that was attacking the Conservatives for not suporting the Kyoto protocol when that was on the table?

Burning gasoline releases greenhouse gases. If we want to reduce emissions, one of the things we're going to have to do is use less gasoline. Unfortunately, for Mr. Layton, lower prices means higher consumption. Higher prices mean lower consumption.

If you want lower gasoline consumption, I don't see how you can be in favour of lowering gas prices.


Update: Links added in the comments.

†Vancouver Sun, April 27, 2006, "Layton demands cheaper gas prices"
Photo Courtesy of FreeFoto.com

Posted by:  westcoastloon

I had to laugh when I saw the source for the photo. I was sitting here thinking "how come Issachar got a gas cap that's attached? My Civic doesn't have that." Saw the silver car, just assumed you'd taken the photo yourself. (Although I was wondering how you pumped gas right handed and still got the shot.)

Posted by:  Katinka

(Westcoastloon, I was thinking the same thing...until I noticed how hairy the arm was. *grn*)

Does anyone have any rollerblades I can borrow? Mission might have a few steep hills, but that's nothing compared to the gas prices.

Posted by:  Marco

Kat, have a good look at Issachar's arm next time. :)

It seems to me that raising gas prices is not, in itself, a very effective solution to greenhouse gas emission unless it is also accompanied by more viable public transportation and/or alternative transportation.

I love Amsterdam. Trams, buses, metros and trains to wherever you need to go, and, of course, bike lanes everywhere (and on flat terrain).

Posted by:  issachar

Rising gas prices don't mean we'll drive less. Just that we'll (eventually), consume less gas. We don't all need suburbans.

Having said that, it seems that Canadians aren't paying much attention to the price of gas. Someone told me yesterday that Canadians are buying more and more large vehicles despite rising gas prices. Still, I think that as gas prices rise, people will buy more fuel efficient vehicles. I know that fuel efficiency (i.e. operating cost), is going to be a factor in my next car purchase.

Interestingly, it seems that hybrid cards are not necessarily the most fuel efficient. The New York Times had an interesting article on that. (Life in the Green Lane, NY Times, April 16th 2006). You need to pay for access now, but you can read a copy here and here.

If you think about it though it makes sense. A supersized SUV hybrid is probably still going to consume more gas than a Civic.

Posted by:  issachar

More links:

Andrew Sullivan

Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post. (Via Andrew Sullivan) - That's worth reading.

Posted by:  zannebee

I was surprised to find that a lot of hybrids don't get that great of gas mileage, the exception being the Toyota Prius.

We definitely need more alternatives to gas powered vehicles and crappy public transpo. The public transportation in Phoenix is laughable, but it seems like whenever someone tries to do anything about, people get in an uproar because they don't want to pay the taxes required to fund something like better public transportation. They don't seem to see that it will benefit them and everyone else. It makes me angry.

Posted by:  Valerius

I was surprised to learn a while ago that the average fuel economy of cars on the road has actually been going down, thanks to the larger portion of SUV's and trucks on the road. But I'm not really surprised that gas consumption doesn't go down as the price goes up. If you can afford $65k for an SUV, you can probably afford $1.1/L for gas. Plus, the layout of many new developments pretty much exclude the use of anything but a car for transportation.

That's interesting about the hybrids, I wouldn't have thought the mileage drop on the highway was as big as the article says. Definitely a city car.

I'm just glad that I can walk to work. Even when it's -30 :)

Posted by:  kris

gorman - i think you assume that people are more rational than most people are ie. it makes sense to people like us that if gas prices go up we should drive cars that are more fuel efficient, but i don't think people buy SUVs for their fuel efficiency.

i'm with marco on the better public transpo. but more than that, i think canadian (and american) culture needs to completely rethink its mindset before it will start driving less. think about where we live: langley. can you get anywhere in langley without driving, whether it be your own personal car or taking a gas-powered bus? no, not really. unless you live right in langley city, for example.
the point is that suburbia makes no sense. not only does it wreck the already depleted environment, but it encourages gas use (hello bedroom communities and mass commuting...)

lesson: build up, not out. preserve land, both by not creating unliveable communities and (then) by driving less.

Posted by:  Lisa

Layton is an oxymoron - he should actually be condemning capitalistics profits of the oil companies. . . because they're certainly not interested in lowering prices for the 'common good.' Actually 1.00 something is still a fairly reasonable price for gas, considering what it could rise to, especially during the summer. Brace yourselves!