The problem is not with the program, it is with the overall Government policies. The do not want to abide to the Kyoto Protocol goals. Instead of reducing the overall smog-forming emissions levels, they want to reduce the intensity of emissions. This is intended to please the tar-sands oil extraction industry, which accounts for a substantial part of the pollution produced in Canada and is located in a Conservative’s (aka Tory) party stronghold. Extraction of petroleum from tar sands will soon produce twice as much pollution than all canadian motor vehicles combined.

(Reducing the overall emissions means that an industry must reduce it’s total emissions, whatever the level of production. Reducing the intensity means reducing the emissions per unit of production. Companies in the oilsands business are happy, because they can reduce the pollution per barrel produced by 20%, increase production five times and still meet the Gov’t goals. Environmentalists are not happy because when you do the maths, this increase in production equals an increase of 400% of smog-forming emissions…)

Well I just bought a new 2008 Ford Ranger 4X2 3.0 L.

Got a 60 some L gas tank and im lucky to get 400 km to a tank

My 1992 Civic burns about a 1/3 of what my ranger burns. My civic alone is worth more than the bike and 300 dollars unless they gonna give me a scott bike. If they give me a scott bike or a kona etc, then ill scrap my car that is currently listed on ebay (1992 Red Civic located in Ontario, check it out on ebay motors . ca)

If I didnt sign financing for the truck I would keep the civic and sell the truck, but I needed a truck. And the gas prices right now sure dont help.

Anyways im off. Working building some hondas tomorrow. Buy a Honda, they really good on gas. Keeps me in a job too.

I had never thought of it that way.

At the risk of appearing argumentative, I must admit that I couldn’t disagree more. To me, there is something inherently political about choosing a bicycle over an automobile. Perhaps not partisan politics, but whether we choose to ride for economic, environmental, or health reasons, we are using public roadways and pathways, sharing the roads with vehicles, and taking ourselves to a certain extent, out of the cycle of fossil fuels and foreign wars.

Whenever we commute by bicycle, we’re taking our mobility into our own hands, instead of purchasing it from the car company, the oil company, the oil cartel, and foreign dictator.
The politics of cycling cannot be easily classified as liberal/conservative, but the simple act of choosing to ride instead of drive has a profound political, economic, environmental, and social impact.

I think that we’re used to seeing politics as an argument rather than a conversation, but I think that those of us who chose to ride, regardless of our ideologies, are, intentionally or not, making a profound political statement that transcends party, ideology, and nation, and a little at a time, makes the world a better place.

Aidan – I’ll refrain from responding about your smattering regarding the US.

If you read all of my previous comment you’d realize I was saying its ridiculous to talk about politics at all on a bike commuting website.