I received an email from a friend of mine about a week ago. It goes, in part, like this:
IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN CANADA DID NOT
PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME
TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES.
AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET
LOSS OF OVER 4 TO 6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF
THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED
"STICK IT UP THEIR @$$ DAY" AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT
BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY.
And so on, So, aside from the rigourous scientific method that can be seen in the first sentence (Is "choking on their stockpiles" the industry term?), what got me thinking was the fact that this email, sent en masse to everyone on this (and many other) person's mail list, implies that everyone is in agreement with the fact that gas/oil prices SHOULD be low. First, gas prices in North America are already lower than in most places in the world. Second, oil is a finite resource the extraction and use of which has dire environmental, political and health implications. It seems to me that something so precious, so dangerous, should in fact be pricey. Don't get me wrong, I have an electric stove and electric heat in my apartment, I have a car (but I take transit to work every day), and I'm not pleased about having to realign my budget to account for the higher prices. However, higher prices means that everyone, including me, will think a bit more about what they're consuming, and I think that's a good thing.
Along similar lines, today in the Toronto Star there's an article that talks about "tax shifting", an approach by which instead of taxing "good" things, "bad" things are taxed. So, for example, you pay higher taxes on gas and garbage collection, highways in the form of tolls, etc., but are rewarded with lower taxes/tax cuts on transit and property. Apparently it didn't fly in Manitoba, but Toronto has a pretty green lefty mayor, so who knows, maybe there's hope. According to the article this approach worked wonders in parts of London when a fee (5 pounds) was levied on driving through some of the most congested parts of the city. Chaos was predicted; compliance and relief ensued. The fees even went up and few complained. Maybe there's hope yet.
As for me, I try to find the balance between actively participating in the society into which I was born (and in which I choose to live) and trying to minimize my participation in the parts of it that I think are harmful and ill-guided, Hardly lofty goals, I know, but you've got to start somewhere,
IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN CANADA DID NOT
PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME
TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES.
AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET
LOSS OF OVER 4 TO 6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF
THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED
"STICK IT UP THEIR @$$ DAY" AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT
BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY.
And so on, So, aside from the rigourous scientific method that can be seen in the first sentence (Is "choking on their stockpiles" the industry term?), what got me thinking was the fact that this email, sent en masse to everyone on this (and many other) person's mail list, implies that everyone is in agreement with the fact that gas/oil prices SHOULD be low. First, gas prices in North America are already lower than in most places in the world. Second, oil is a finite resource the extraction and use of which has dire environmental, political and health implications. It seems to me that something so precious, so dangerous, should in fact be pricey. Don't get me wrong, I have an electric stove and electric heat in my apartment, I have a car (but I take transit to work every day), and I'm not pleased about having to realign my budget to account for the higher prices. However, higher prices means that everyone, including me, will think a bit more about what they're consuming, and I think that's a good thing.
Along similar lines, today in the Toronto Star there's an article that talks about "tax shifting", an approach by which instead of taxing "good" things, "bad" things are taxed. So, for example, you pay higher taxes on gas and garbage collection, highways in the form of tolls, etc., but are rewarded with lower taxes/tax cuts on transit and property. Apparently it didn't fly in Manitoba, but Toronto has a pretty green lefty mayor, so who knows, maybe there's hope. According to the article this approach worked wonders in parts of London when a fee (5 pounds) was levied on driving through some of the most congested parts of the city. Chaos was predicted; compliance and relief ensued. The fees even went up and few complained. Maybe there's hope yet.
As for me, I try to find the balance between actively participating in the society into which I was born (and in which I choose to live) and trying to minimize my participation in the parts of it that I think are harmful and ill-guided, Hardly lofty goals, I know, but you've got to start somewhere,