Canada's Gas Prices

[Mighty AC]

I would rather pay more for gas, if it lead to a reduction in fossil fuel use.

[WestCoastRunner]

I would rather pay more for gas, if it lead to a reduction in fossil fuel use.

You are in for it now!

[Bryan]

I would rather pay more for gas, if it lead to a reduction in fossil fuel use.

Go ahead. Just leave an extra $20 on the counter. No one will stop you.

[Smallc]

I would rather pay more for gas, if it lead to a reduction in fossil fuel use.

It doesn't. It only penalizes people that don't have a choice in it's use.

[ProudCanadianConservative]

I would rather pay more for gas, if it lead to a reduction in fossil fuel use.

It won't, or if so it would be minor and you would only alienate that hard working people that are reliant on fossil fuels. Working at a gas station I know that majority of our customers need fuel to get to and from work, that's why our busiest hours are normally rush hour. Not to mention the work trucks like Sask Power, Plumbers, Electricians, Construction.

[jbg]

Hi All,

After Watching Lou Dobbs Tonight it appears the US has a law (OCS lands Act) requiring all oil extracted in the US is to be sold and made available to the US. Hmmmm, considering Canada is an exporter of oil, yet we are paying more for our gas at the pump than the US who happens to imports 80% of their oil is absolutely ridiculous.

Excise taxes, maybe?

But don't your signs post a lower number, say $1.15 whereas ours post, say, $3.29?

[Big Guy]

What would be the relationship to the average price of a car in Canada in 1965 and the average price per gallon of gas as compared to the average price of a car in Canada to-day as compared to the average price per gallon of gas to-day.

Basically, has the price for gas relative to price of car remained the same or changed over the last 50 years?

[Mighty AC]

It doesn't. It only penalizes people that don't have a choice in it's use.

It won't, or if so it would be minor and you would only alienate that hard working people that are reliant on fossil fuels.

Actually, gas prices do impact driving habits. HIgher, gas prices have also lead to more fuel efficient vehicles, car pooling and less vehicle ownership. This is most prevalent with younger drivers, with people aged 16-34 driving 23% less in 2009 than they did in 2001.

Fuel prices also impact transit ridership. Every 10% increase in gas prices leads to a 4% increase in bus ridership and an 8% increase on trains.

http://www.treehugger.com/economics/study-shows-high-gas-prices-do-reduce-driving-encourage-use-alternatives.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/americans-driving-less-gas-prices-weak-economy_n_3274911.html

Edited November 15, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Smallc]

Well that's fine, but I run a business that requires me to spend several hundred dollars on fuel a week. It's unavoidable considering where I live and what I do. No matter what the price, that isn't about to change. I also know first hand what the price of fuel does to things we all buy every day. Fuel surcharges and base prices rise with fuel, and that is simply passed on.

[socialist]

Actually, gas prices do impact driving habits. HIgher, gas prices have also lead to more fuel efficient vehicles, car pooling and less vehicle ownership. This is most prevalent with younger drivers, with people aged 16-34 driving 23% less in 2009 than they did in 2001.

Fuel prices also impact transit ridership. Every 10% increase in gas prices leads to a 4% increase in bus ridership and an 8% increase on trains.

http://www.treehugger.com/economics/study-shows-high-gas-prices-do-reduce-driving-encourage-use-alternatives.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/americans-driving-less-gas-prices-weak-economy_n_3274911.html

So true. And TREEHUGGER.com is an awesome site for real information.

[Mighty AC]

So true. And TREEHUGGER.com is an awesome site for real information.

Tree Hugger is just an enviro blog, but the article references and provides a link to a real an economic study on the elasticity of gas prices.

[ProudCanadianConservative]

Actually, gas prices do impact driving habits. HIgher, gas prices have also lead to more fuel efficient vehicles, car pooling and less vehicle ownership. This is most prevalent with younger drivers, with people aged 16-34 driving 23% less in 2009 than they did in 2001.

Fuel prices also impact transit ridership. Every 10% increase in gas prices leads to a 4% increase in bus ridership and an 8% increase on trains.

http://www.treehugger.com/economics/study-shows-high-gas-prices-do-reduce-driving-encourage-use-alternatives.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/americans-driving-less-gas-prices-weak-economy_n_3274911.html

Although I'm choosing not to read your sources, treehugger.com and puffington post. However assuming the information you have is true (which i'm willing to give you the benefit of that doubt) is that a good thing.

Now as far as youth drivers the positives is it could reduce traffic accidents, because youth are most at risk to be involved in an accident, and as well as less fossil fuel emissions. However a negative is the more people refuse to drive they limit their own opportunities, and it pretty much confines them to only living in urban areas, because rural areas you need a vehicle.

As far as transit, for one will supply of those who run buses and transit be able to keep up with the demand. Would we need to hire more bus drivers, and train engineers, whilst people who drive are getting gauged. And once again you are talking urban issues, I live in rural Saskatchewan, buses and trains are not viable options to get to work. So in order to save the environment, we will continually increase gas prices, which only hurts people in rural areas which vehicles are more often than not the only mode of transportation. Now what's the big deal you may ask, rural areas are small, little pain. Rural areas in Saskatchewan are mostly farming towns, and more farming areas are also rural areas. Now living in cities people may think farming not an important job, but it is an important job. Farmers are the people that grow or raise most of the foods we eat. You risk alienating farmers if you continually increase gas prices.

Edited November 16, 2014 by ProudCanadianConservative

[Mighty AC]

Most of our population lives in urban/suburban areas. However, high fuel prices have driven demand for more efficient vehicles of all kinds. The efficiency of trucks has improved more dramatically, on a total fuel saved basis, than any other class of vehicle. As a result Ford's entire truck lineup will be made of aluminum starting next model year to shed near 1,000 pounds and thus improve performance and fuel economy numbers.

That's how economics works. As prices rise, money and incentive to find alternatives build. History is littered with peak commodity cases. As crazy as it sounds we once had a lumber shortage and rubber cartels. This lead to more steel construction and synthetic rubbers and plastics. Rising gas prices will lead to a quicker transition into more efficient internal combustion engines, electric vehicles, better transit, car shares, bike lanes, smarter city construction, tele-commuting, etc. We and our children and children's children will be much better off because of it.

I say we tax things we don't want like pollution and lighten the burden on this we do want, like income. Hello carbon tax! It just makes sense.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Boges]

Wouldn't current prices indicate demand is somewhat low? It's economics afterall.

Carbon taxes are just punitive measures to target the middle class.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Boges

[Bryan]

I say we tax things we don't want like pollution and lighten the burden on this we do want, like income. Hello carbon tax! It just makes sense.

Taxing actual pollution makes sense. CO2 is not pollution. Carbon Taxes are just wealth transfer schemes that hurt those who can afford it the least.

[Mighty AC]

Taxing actual pollution makes sense. CO2 is not pollution. Carbon Taxes are just wealth transfer schemes that hurt those who can afford it the least.

Wrong and wrong.

[Bryan]

Wrong and wrong.

So you think that taxing pollution DOESN'T make sense?

[On Guard for Thee]

Wrong and wrong.

Taxing actual pollution makes sense. CO2 is not pollution. Carbon Taxes are just wealth transfer schemes that hurt those who can afford it the least.

CO2 is a type of pollution, and usually when we release it we do it along with some serious pollutants. Go suck on the tailpipe of your car and see how you feel.

[Bryan]

CO2 is a type of pollution

No more so than water is.

[Mighty AC]

No more so than water is.

Sigh...there are enough threads dedicated to dealing with this type of foolishness.

[Bryan]

Sigh...there are enough threads dedicated to dealing with this type of foolishness.

The reason you're exasperated is you don't know what you're talking about, and need others to talk for you. The foolishness is all yours. CO2 is not a pollutant.

[On Guard for Thee]

No more so than water is.

Sigh...there are enough threads dedicated to dealing with this type of foolishness.

Double sigh.

[On Guard for Thee]

The reason you're exasperated is you don't know what you're talking about, and need others to talk for you. The foolishness is all yours. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Perhaps if you lived on the south coast of Florida and saw the ocean creepin ginto your house you might start to think about GW and what causes it.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

The reason you're exasperated is you don't know what you're talking about, and need others to talk for you. The foolishness is all yours. CO2 is not a pollutant.

You make a very interesting argument, it's true, most of the carbon we are pumping out of the ground used to be in the atmosphere. At that time the world was a much more temperate place according to fossil records.

"Scientists" claim weather is deteriorating as the climate changes, we've only been tracking weather for less then a hundred years, I'd like to know how they can say this without more evidence.

A far as carbon taxes being added to gasoline prices, it might reduce consumption a bit for awhile but the economy is only going to adjust for it. The main benefactors of course will be those who find a way siphon money off in the implantation of this tax through administration, auditing, policing etc.

If you go way back to the original post, he is right, all the pipelines and projects proposed for the tar sands is for export at discounted prices, while the oil travels right past points in Canada that are importing fuels at world prices. We should keep this raw product at home and export what's left over.

[Michael Hardner]

"Scientists" claim weather is deteriorating as the climate changes, we've only been tracking weather for less then a hundred years, I'd like to know how they can say this without more evidence.

? We've only been tracking the weather for less than 100 years ? Can you prove that please ?

A far as carbon taxes being added to gasoline prices, it might reduce consumption a bit for awhile but the economy is only going to adjust for it. The main benefactors of course will be those who find a way siphon money off in the implantation of this tax through administration, auditing, policing etc.

You could use it to clean up CO2 emissions, phase out coal etc.