Discussion: Cutting Our Dependency on Oil
June 16th, 2008 at 11:47am Mark Noonan
We hear much of this, but let us actually think of the ways and means we can cut our oil consumption. We’re going to have a rule or two:
1. It can’t be something already put out by the Obama or McCain campaigns.
2. It must not require any new technology.
3. It must not require any direct government expenditure.
4. It must not add to the regulatory burden on the economy.
5. It must allow people to be in charge of their own energy consumption choices.
Herewith some of my ideas:
A: Switch from a standard 8 hours, five days a week at work to 10 hours, four days a week.
In theory, this would cut America’s collective commute - and the fuel consumed therein - by 20%; in actuality, it would be less even if it became the norm, but I’ll bet that a widespread application of this would reduce our gasoline consumption by 10%, as well as greatly cutting down auto emissions.
As for the practical terms of it - I and the Mrs have been working “four tens” for years now, and we’ve become so accustomed to it that we find it incomprehensible how anyone has any real fun with only two days a week off. Such a proposal would allow for people to have more usuable leisure time (that two hours you’re currently off each weekday are rather worthless for recreation in any real sense), more time to spend with family, more time to spend on personal activities (you think I’d blog this much if I had to put in a five day week?) and would allow for very flexible work schedules (some people, like me, will prefer Fri-Sat-Sun, but others will prefer Mon-Tue-Wed, or any combination you can think of). My preferred method of encouraging this - tax breaks for businesses which allow it.
B: Large trucks only to travel between 7pm and 7am.
Large trucks tend to clog the highways as they are slower and less nimble than automobiles - at rush hour, this tends to slow down traffic greatly, causing greater consumption of fuel for all concerned. By getting them off the road during the day we will make the commute much faster and easier (already made so, of course, by the fact that 20% less people are trying to get to downtown each day in line with Proposal A) and I believe that it can be demonstrated that keeping truck traffic to the night hours will show that average time on the road for the trucks is reduced, thus reducing the cost of shipping goods as well as the amount of fuel consumed. Preferred way to encourage - once again, tax breaks for transportation companies who will do this.
C: Encourage telecommuting.
How many millions of us spend our work day in front of a computer in a cubicle? I do and the Mrs does. The difference? She rolls out of bed, brushes her teeth, grabs a bite to eat and then goes into the home office to work. Zero fuel expenditure for her morning commute, as well as being able to sleep in later. As for me, I drive 18 miles each way to do a job I could just as well do at my kitchen counter on a lap top. A neighbor down the street telecommutes to New York City every day - her “workspace” being her back patio next to the pool, where she’s able to put in a solid days work as well as become the most perfectly tanned person I’ve ever known. There is, as far as I can tell, no downside to telecommuting - and we can make a great upside for corporations by allowing them to write off the cost of setting up telecommuting for their employees.
Those are three that I thought up (though the “four tens” thing was actually suggested by the Mrs - too close to the reality for me to actually notice that I spend less on gas than most because I’ve only got to drive in four days a week). What do you think of them? What would you do?
Discuss.
Entry Filed under: Economy, Grassroots, Life Issues
43 Comments
1. Sockeye | June 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Just to remind you Noonan,
go back in your archives and read what you wrote about conservation of oil and the economy.
NOW it’s ok to conserve? We have been telling you this for years.
You and libsbane…go back, review, telling us how great the economy is and was going to be…how there was no REAL issue with oil, (it’s hiding).
You’re a hack and a hypocrite.
Please, after reading your hate filled, name calling, smear spreading, gossip filled gas bag blog, spare us the pious B.S.
2. Kahn | June 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Every building should have solar panels installed.
Small city size nukes should be put in every major urban area patterned after the small systems installed on Navy ships.
The inner city produces no food and little goods. But a huge food production and transportation system is required to grow food and to transport it to the people living there. A relocation and re-education program should move these people out of these dense areas into areas where they can contribute.
3. Magnum Serpentine | June 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Hum.
Responding to the two above:
1, Sockeye… Very interesting.
2. Khan… The only problem with your suggestion is…NIMBY.
The way to lower oil prices and Fuel cost is to file Price gouging charges against big oil and to arrest the Speculators for illegal activities. Also, all that land that we have already given Big Oil, which they refuse to drill on even though there are tons of oil on that land, take the land away from them.
next.
4. Carlton Pryor, Lead Economist, TED-OG | June 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
A. Would lead to more off work petrol consumption.
B. Would eventually create shortages at places where you like there not to be shortages like the local grocery store due to delays in trucks arriving with meat and produce.
C. Is a novel idea and I support it but many Americans are not disciplined enough to just work from home as many are not disciplined enough not to be surfing just like I am right now.
.333 isn’t a bad American baseball batting average but for a cricketer it would just not do. I would suggest a greater utilization of public transportation to get to and from work when possible and the use of the Internet for short trips to the mall. All of those stores have web sites. Imagine how much petrol could be saved there?
5. neocon | June 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
There is NO NEED to conserve oil. That is a false premise. There are plenty of reserves available both domestically and internationally.
Why should I conserve on something that is bountiful?
That being said, we need to move our society to a new, more sustainable energy paradigm. But in the meantime……..DRILL NOW.
6. majoriot | June 16th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
neocon.
Why use more of something than you have to?
I have heard the proposition of a staggered start working day. This would alleviate much of he ruch hour waste and pollution.
And hey, I’m all for 4-10’s
7. Some Assembly Required | June 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Agreed on 4 - 10’s… Everyone hates mondays anyway!
8. OhioOrrin | June 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
#1 - ensure gas prices continue to go up.
I feel $5/gal gas will cause structural changes for the better in our overconsumptive society which will strengthen our national security.
the free market will solve our dependency.
beware, however, the crack dealer, errr…sorry - I meant OPEC who will notice our (hopefully) decreasing consumption & pump more to lower the price.
course the chinese & indians will probably use what we don’t anyway.
9. Casper | June 16th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Sockeye,
Try discussing the ideas instead of attacking the messenger. One of the biggest problems in our country right now is that people reject ideas based on who came up with them rather than how good the ideas are. This happens on both sides.
Mark,
I like your ideas and I think they are worth discussing. A and C wouldn’t work very good for me though unless you wanted to extend the school day, and that brings up a new set of problems.
Here’s a couple my ideas.
Shop locally if you can. How many people will drive five miles to save 50 cents on a six pack of pop.
Walk or ride a bake to the store or to work. Not only do you save gas, but it’s good for you. I live three blocks from the mall and I still end up driving there to get a haircut. Not very smart on my part, but I’m guessing other people do the same.
Kahn,
I like your ideas also. If I could harness the wind and solar power that my house and yard gets, I could probably power it and half the block.
10. Thrower | June 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
As one constantly frustrated by sitting with engines idling at red lights, traffic lights should be “timed” whenever possible. In addition, all left turn arrows should be “turn and yield” options where drivers turn when the arrow is green and then yield after it goes off and all same directional traffic begins to move.
In San Diego we have thousands of needless lights and virtually all force you to sit at a red turn lights even if there are no cars within hundreds of yards.
When we moved to a new home in North County, we could go south on the main drive for 1.5 miles and hit one traffic light. Now there are six lights, including three within 150 yards. That is wasted energy to run the lights, and wasted gas while drivers sit them out.
11. Casper | June 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Here is an idea, I find very inrteresting:
http://www.verticalfarm.com/
Since almost all of the food I eat comes from at least 200 miles away, being able to produce the bulk of it here would not only save on gas, but would also give a more secure food source.
12. David B. Schmidt | June 16th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Not sure if this has been suggested by either campiagn; however, get rid of all boutique fuels replaced by one nation standard.
I also used to work 4-10’s and loved it over the 5-8’s I am working today. The advantage is my corporation (big & evil) promotes telecommuting at least once a week and twice if possible.
13. Some Assembly Required | June 16th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Solar power is great, but no where near economically viable to heat your home right now. Wind power has it’s problems as well. Personally, my next home will have a geothermal heating system incorporated. There is a fairly high start up cost, but it pays for itself in as little as 5 years. Not to mention, in floor heating is an option. For those of you who have ever had to get up 2 hours early to shovel your driveway, heating tubes can also be placed under asphalt to get ride of that pesky snow. As it stands now this is only an option for heating and not power homes though.
I like those electric bikes they have in China that can go about 30 miles an hour as well.
14. Chris | June 16th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
You are asking two completely separate questions. How are we going to cut foreign dependence on oil vs how are we going to cut consumption of oil.
Cutting consumption is a nice way of saying slow the economy and development. Technology will always get more efficient so why make such a sudden push?
Tell the millions of people in poverty and low income jobs that you want to slow development. Any artificial restrictions on development are going to cost opportunities for poorer Americans. But then again, the whole Global Warming movement is going to crush the poor.
We need to drill every ounce of oil in the US over the next 15 years as well as use an emergency order to build refineries until 100% of US gas is produced here. We may decide to sell it overseas and import cheaper gas, but it is a National Security issue to produce 100% of our energy needs at home. Use the licensing fees to build nuclear reactors. Use fees on electricity to conduct research for alternative energy.
We need to become the energy exporting superpower of the world. All oil will be drilled in the world, but environmentalists appear to want poor quality drilling done by Russia and China rather than the cleaner technologies the US companies use.
This is the only way to be energy independent. It will take us longer to get their if we cause most Americans to lose economic opportunities because of artificially high gas prices. If we worked to make everyone rich, we would be able to convert to a cleaner energy much more quickly. The enviros are approaching this whole thing the wrong way (IF they really wanted to solve the problem, although I imagine it helps their fundraising if they prevent actual solutions and just save “endangered” species).
15. Dasein Libsbane | June 16th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Well, since the poorly articulated buffoon sockpuppet invoked my nom-de-Net, I’ll state clearly and for the record that all comments I have made vis-à-vis the economy have been wholly and completely accurate. I’ll further state that despite fishfood’s lies I have never stated that oil is no problem, nor implied such.
I’ll further point out that in spite of Salmon-brain’s histrionics there is still . no . recession.
16. Richard of Oregon | June 16th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
There are many, many viable alternative to the current oil supply problems. Shale oil, Canadian asphalt sands, coal conversion, drilling in currently prohibited areas are a few petroleum solutions. Nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal are a few other energy sources that could be better utilized. Fuel cells, compressed air, new lithium ion batteries that use nanotubes to produce a tenfold increase in capacity are a few new energy sources that may prove out. Technology is the solution, not the problem. So where has the bottle-neck been the last thirty years? Congress singlehandedly has blocked most new technology and development. My solution is to vote against every member of Congress and vote for anyone who promises to become part of the solution instead of remaining the problem. Let no Congressman remain. If the voters focus, the change will come quickly.
17. Some Assembly Required | June 16th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
This is very interesting. Landfill Gas
http://www.crd.bc.ca/waste/hartland/lfgelectricity.htm
Very interesting indeed. entire landfill sites are now becoming completely self-sufficient while cutting down on GHG.
18. Sockeye | June 16th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I love this site.
Here’s a sampler…
It’s all good. Honest. Would we lie?
Don’t conserve, it’s bad for the economy.
Still no recession. Just don’t report the M3 or calculate the food and energy costs into inflation.
There is no civil war in Iraq. All “insurgents” are AQ.
What CIA tapes?
Plame was not covert.
On and on…
I’m laughing as I write this. It’s so sad, it’s ironically funny.
It’s good to read you again libsbane. Tell us again how good the economy is, and well…how everything in general is.
I stand in awe of your predicative ability.
19. Magnum Serpentine | June 16th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The whole thing is artificial. Big Oil has been given land with tons of oil on it. Big Oil holds the land and refuses to drill because it will lower the cost of gas. Therefore, we need to launch Price Gouging investigations into Big Oil, arrest the speculators and take back land we have given big oil to drill on, but big oil refuses to drill or build oil refineries. Big Oil knows if they start drilling on the land they already have received from the Federal Government, the price of gas will drop to below 1.30 a gallon. So big Oil refuses to drill. Watch some of the investigations launched by the Democratic party against big oil. They are eye openers.
20. french student | June 16th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
http://www.theaircar.com/acf/
21. js | June 16th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
How about putting a legitimate hydrogen booster on every vehicle on the road?
Check in out;
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Hydroxy/?v=1&t=search&ch=web&pub=groups&sec=group&slk=1
and;
http://www.smacksboosters.110mb.com/Smack.pdf
22. Casper | June 16th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Here is one of the most exciting stories I’ve read in a while.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece
They have come up with a bacteria that eats waste and excretes oil, and it uses more CO2 in the process that the bruning oil would produce.
23. Rave Dave | June 16th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
We need to bring back horses and buggies for transportation and use sheep instead of lawn mowers. Police and Fire should be allowed to use motor vehicles.
Moreover, since the FDA cannot protect the consumer, more and more people have returned to growing their own vegetables. This should be done on a much wider scale. This and buying food from local farmers markets will mean less food will have to be transported to to major grocery stores.
24. fangbeer | June 16th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
A. 4-10 hour days != 5-8 hour days. It may be the same amount of hours but it will not translate to the same amount of work done.
B. Large trucks need to travel during the day because that’s when the businesses they deliver to are open….
C. Telecommuting is great for a very limited section of labor. You can’t exactly telecommute to the cashier line at the grocery store, the oil change pit at the garage, the hospital bed, the high school classroom…the list goes on and on…
25. Jeremiah | June 16th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
We need to bring back horses and buggies
There ya go.
The Amish do…Boy, I wish I lived in that Amish country, everything, their whole way of life is built on farming, plow, mow hay, go to Church, all of it they do by horses. I’d especially like to plow some.
Belgians, Clydes, Shires, Percherons, Suffolk….All Beasts of Burden.
And their fuel comes from the grass…plus, they refuel themselves, except in winter. Plus the manure makes good fertilizer for the garden.
All you need is grass.
26. Mark Noonan | June 16th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
sockeye,
Not conservation - conservation is putting the speed limit at 55 mph; I’m talking about reducing our dependency on oil, not just imported, but all oil, without having to interfere in the normal workings of society.
What is clear from your comments is that you are angered mostly by the fact that I’m not fitting your mindless stereotype.
27. Mark Noonan | June 16th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
fangbeer,
Yes it does - actually, I’m one of the most productive workers in my department. So, your theory there is weak.
As for trucks - a truck going from Los Angeles to Salt Lake city with a delivery of shoes and socks for Target doesn’t have to travel through Las Vegas as 8am…
28. js | June 16th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I made a hydrogen booster w/32 oz jar using electrical tape and some scrap galvanized metal for 2 electrodes tonight.
Even using baking soda as an electrolite, that corrodes the metal electrodes, it generates enough hydrogen/oxygen to burn and pop about once per minute, and I only used a slow tricle charger with a 6 amp charge to do it. Its a really crude setup, but it works.
With a good setup using the proper materials in a 4 inch PVC pipe, I can put it on my car and reduce the amount of gas that I have to buy, by 20-40%. The smack booster does not cost much more than 50-60 $$ to make.
face it….horses and buggies just wont cut it anymore….could you imagine going uptown on the main road in a traffic jam? there would be at least 1 foot of horse dung on every main road…….not so cool…..
29. bagni | June 16th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
markdependency
suckeye is right
one minute you condemn conservation
the next min you condone it
we’re chromatically confused again….
despite your flipfloppage
here’s is a cool interstellar idea
the 2mile challenge
40% of all u.s. urban travel is a 2mile radius
http://www.2milechallenge.com/home.html
get off your butt
and ride a bike
30. keystonRepublican | June 16th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
a.) A co-worker’s wife just started working 4 10-hour days. She works for a county office and it’s being implemented because of the cost of gas. She and some of her co-workers travel 2 hours day.
b.) I agree with fangbeer that deliveries for most truckers are restricted by business operating hours.
c.) Who wouldn’t love to telecommute. However, I agree that not everyone is disciplined enough to do so but those who are should be given the option. I would think what our office would save on coffee, sugar, cream, bottled water, utilities etc alone would be worth it to the company.
31. SEW | June 16th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Inexpensive microreactors turn lignite coal into oil
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/rmiller/stories/DN-miller_15bus.ART.State.Edition1.4db8cbf.html
32. Rana Quijotesca | June 17th, 2008 at 1:08 am
A few ideas:
–Eat locally and only foods (mainly fruits and vegetables) that are in-season. This will cut transportation costs astronomically and reduce the amount of fuel used.
–Make corporations publish the amount of fuel they use and the amount of pollution they create in an easy to access, public document. This will shame them into conserving.
–Stop driving automobiles that get fewer than 20 mpg and don’t drive at speeds where cruising requires over 3k rpm (depends on the car, for my MAZDA, that’s around 65-70, for my dad’s BMW, it’s about 75-85). It should be noted that this should be a voluntary thing, though the government can “nudge” people in the right direction.
–Switch to hydrogen cells/alternative energy sources when possible. (I don’t like biofuels until we can make them out of organic garbage, which is currently being developed. The current system jacks up food prices and rapes the third world.)
–Retrofit flat roofed buildings with green roofs and build all new buildings with green roofs. This will increase insulation and decrease heating/cooling costs.
That’s all I can think of off of the top of my head… finally, a thread I can really get behind…
33. cam | June 17th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Mark,
I have to give it to you on this one. The ideas you posted here certainly have merit, may take some tinkering.
1. This one may be more like many of the advances in technology that promised more free time. All these things did is raised the productivity but may have actually led to less free time. Likely 4 10’s will turn into 5 10’s. If employees have free time it becomes open to being used. Many people working in professional areas already work 60-80 hours a week with no additional compensation and little time for families. Don’t hold your breath on this one.
2. Trucking - while this one has promise and is worth trying it will likely add cost to labor. Because the night shift is less desirable it will likely take higher compensation to attract enough people who want to work the night shift - nothing is free. Also, people working at night are less productive and more prone to accidents. This also will add additional costs in insurance and will likely lower productivity. Further, there is already a lot of trucks that are moving at night. So, at least with these trucks, nothing would be gained. Overall the gains from this proposal may just be offset by the losses.
3. Telecommuting sounds good. But what do you do when your kids are sick. Likely, instead of calling in sick yourself you would try to balance the work demands with those of your sick kids and ultimately most people would have difficulty staying on task, thereby lowering productivity. Ultimately I think telecommuting works best when the output of individual employees is easily segregated and measured. Otherwise it is hard for supervisors to monitor actual work being done. Also the temptation to do other computer work that is less than work related would likely lead to a lot of internet surfing and yes blogging on company time. In our organization both alternate work weeks and telecommuting are allowed. In my observation it leads to less team atmosphere and the person you need is never there on the day you need them. Further, it seems the people who telecommute sometimes seem distracted and out of touch when they work from home. Even so, if fuel continues to increase in price it may leave little choice but to continue to look for more efficient ways to get things done.
I give you kudos for taking the first step.
34. Mark Noonan | June 17th, 2008 at 2:28 am
cam,
Truth be told, I’m hoping for an eventual immense expansion of rail and light rail transport - I think that the whole trucking model is ill advised for a wide variety of reasons. You’ve seen those three-trailor monstrosities on the road, I’m sure - and one has to ask: given that the road design is essentially from the 50’s, have we really adjusted our roads and bridges to the volume and sheer weight of truck traffic as its increased over the past 50 years? Of course, said expansion of rail and light rail would require some direct government intervention and that is outside the parameters of this discussion.
It is true that working from home would require some self-motivation, but those companies I’ve seen do it don’t have much complaint about it - and, honestly, how many people clocked in for 8 hours of work at the cubicle really put in 8 hours of constant labor? I’m pretty diligent, but I’ve also got a lot of time during the day when I’m not exactly focused on my work. In my view, any large corporation has a certain percentage of people who do the work, and another certain percentage who coast along doing the minimum…my bet is that it’d work out pretty much the same if everyone worked at home.
I can understand the temptation of corporations to try and get more work for less pay - I loved a recent Dilbert cartoon where the boss was explaining the “stretch goals” and the employee was noting that the stretch goals really amount to the employee doing more work for the same pay…and the boss stating at the end that he’d leave the “super stretch goals” for later. This is just so exact to what my company is doing. The answer to this is that corporations have the sad misconception that their goal is high profits - this, in turn, is a product of mindless business school instruction - inject a bit of Christianity into the corporations and you’d get a better result, but no one is going to go along with that, mostly out of fear that it might work. So, the battle between employees who wish to be well paid for little work and employers who wish little pay for much work will continue - and everyone worse off than they could be if a bit of love and charity were put into the mix. Once someone figures out that the job of a corporation is to provide the best product or service possible, the business paradigm will shift - though that may be a long time coming.
My proposals also dovetail with my preferred economic model of as much of life as possible being centered around the home, rather than around the faceless corporation, faceless government bureacracy and mindless popular culture. The one thing I would do if I were given power to do it would be to revive “blue laws” - I know, very square…but there is a reason God made a day off for everyone: He knows His creatures, and thus knows that everyone needs to knock off a bit and take a breather. We should, as a society, shut down at least once per week and worship God and spend time with our families and friends. We’re too much “go go go” these days, and it is physically, psychologically and spiritually harming us greatly, in my view.
Mostly, though, I want an end to oil - its causing us nothing but trouble; but I also don’t want foolish, top down government programs making a worse mess out of everything. So, lets get together, as people, and figure out how we’re going to do this.
35. cam | June 17th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Now on the other side. I sure hope the oil that we have suddenly found will materialize. I have heard the parade of conservatives ready to blame the whole thing on environmentalists. I suspect that much of the energy being discussed of late may have only recently become economically feasilble. Unfortunately, once OPEC realizes that we are serious about alternatives, the price of oil will once again come down to a level where all of the alternatives, and I’m afraid that includes the seemingly unlimited supplies that supposedly lie close to home, will once again bocome economically unfeasable and we’ll be back where we started 35 years ago. After all, no industry will ever operate without a profit. Because our dependence on foreign oil has such huge national security implications, perhaps this would be the time when government subsidies would make sense even to the conservatives. Unfortunately, the free market does not take anything else into consideration other than the bottom line. That is why energy comes from all sources even those that do not stand for the same ideals as our own. And that is why much of the cheap goods we buy come from countries that allow human beings to be treated like animals. The free market does not have a conscience.
36. kjstrouble1 | June 17th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Some news came out locally that seemed to have some people amazed. Ridership on local mass transit (buses) has gone up. The local head of our city’s mass transit department was unsure if they could sustain this increased cost caused by more people riding the bus! Everyone screams about conservation and using mass transit, and when it happens - the mass transit dept is not prepared.
Would love either 4-10’s (have done them before) or working from home. Or both. Since my employer uses VOIP for the phone service, and I have a high speed connection - it would probably work.
As for truckers running at night - could work between main terminals. Then have set times (after/before rush hour) for deliveries to be made. But - yeah, rail or light rail is probably the way of the future. And would probably be much safer given the conditions I have seen some truckers operating.
37. Richard of Oregon | June 17th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Right now we have one energy source for the majority of our transportation. It doesn’t matter who controls it, as long as fossil fuels make up 90%+ of the energy used to move us and our stuff around, choices will be limited and prices high. It’s like when Ma Bell was the only phone service available. We had very limited choices and high prices. We didn’t know any better, of course. What we had was all that we knew and change seemed risky. The telephone cartel was broken up and innovation became profitible. The same thing could happen with transportation if we allow innovation to become profitible.
38. Fangbeer | June 17th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Yes it does - actually, I’m one of the most productive workers in my department. So, your theory there is weak.
With all due respect, I don’t think that changing your work schedule to 4-10 really has much impact on the economy or energy use at all. But at the point where enough people switch to 4-10 to impact the entire system, you’re going to have to face some problems that are much worse than the one you are trying to fix. (As a side note: I don’t see oil’s use as a resource as a problem so I’m loath to argue it as such. Resources should be taken advantage of. That’s how we grow our economy and increase our standard of living)
First of all, your idea is really only suitable for white collar workers. 10 hour shifts just don’t make sense for blue collar and service sector jobs. We are on an 8 hour schedule for a reason. It’s not just an arbitrary choice. There are 3 8 hour shifts in a day. The average worker works four hours, takes a half hour lunch, and then works another four. If you add their commute this makes their effective work day day about 9-9.5 hours already.
One of the big problems I see with your system is that blue collar and service sector jobs work around white collar schedules. Take my day as an example. I leave for work at 7:00. I drop my kid off at preschool. I get in to work at 8 and work until 12. I take an hour lunch and then work until 5:00. I then go pick up my daughter at school and get home at 6:00.
Now, I take a lunch that is longer than required by law, (15 min for every 4 hours) and I might live a little further than most people live, and I have the added responsibility of a child in the mix. I can’t say that my day is average, but what I can say is that my day does need to be accommodated for in a 10 hour system just as it is in an 8 hour system.
That means my preschool suddenly has to cover 13 hours instead of the 11 that it covers now. That means my coffee shop has to open an hour earlier. That means my gym has to stay open 2 hours later. The real effect of this is that service sector and blue collar workers are going to have double the commute times to accommodate. If you decide to still have a 5 day work week the problem just gets worse…
Of course, with all this ‘trickle over’ you’ll find that there’s only so much usable time during the day. You can’t make up for it by shaving off the rest of the things you do during the day. You can’t take 80% of a shower Monday - Thursday and then take 180% of a shower on Friday to catch up. Breakfast, dinner, sleep the amount of time it takes to de-stress and decompress. It all takes the same amount of time.
39. Fangbeer | June 17th, 2008 at 11:24 am
As for trucks - a truck going from Los Angeles to Salt Lake city with a delivery of shoes and socks for Target doesn’t have to travel through Las Vegas as 8am…
Says who? What time did the order go in for the shoes and socks? What time was the truck packed for the 10 hour trip? Where does the truck go after it drops off the shoes and socks? How does your plan affect the 11 hour on 8 hour off mandate by the federal government? Don’t we need more drivers and more trucks to affectively carry out your plan?
40. js | June 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
what i really want to know is…
why didnt the us government spend as much money to make solar electricity a reality as they stole from the US Taxpayers through earmarks in the last decade?
every home should have solar panels, the technology has been available for decades and our representatives would rather piss away billions on waste than get the peoples business taken care of…
41. Doug | June 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
js,
You could try living in our state where nearly all of the electricity is hydroelectric power, yet the state legislature categorizes hydroelectric power in the same classification as coal power as far as polluting is concerned. Now the utilities have to wean themselves off the clean, renewable hydroelectric power or get in trouble by the Democratically controlled state.
I’m going to suggest just the opposite of what this liberal thinking Noonan is saying ;)
There is enough oil in the U.S. to provide all of our needs for hundreds of years so why bother decreasing demand. We should be increasing supply. Sounds to me like there hasn’t been enough earmarks aimed at providing the oil companies the opportunity for creating newer and more efficient ways to get at the oil that at this time the technology isn’t there to pump it.
We should be providing more money and targeted tax breaks to the oil companies that specifically target improving technology and ability to get to the oil that we haven’t been able to.
42. js | June 17th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
raping the oil companies will not change the way we deal with energy…it will only raise the price of oil…you really dont think they are going to pay more taxes out of profits, do you….just like milk, tomatoes and corn flakes….the only thing that does not go up is wages….so the middle class as a measurment of success will, once again, be living check to check…..financing thier homes, cars, shoot, they even finance what they cant afford….instead of save…
eliminate the bills and you cure the disease
43. bmw charity pro am&hellip | July 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
bmw charity pro am
) Some individuals or companies have abused the TrackBack feature to insert spam links on some blogs (see sping). Some weblog software