CARROLL: Perks of a green life
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
I see that Gov. Bill Ritter wants us to unplug our computers and other electronic devices before leaving the house in the morning - not just turn them off but unplug them from the wall - in order to ease our transition into the New Energy Economy. In an ad now playing on local TV, Ritter briskly unplugs a laptop from the wall shortly before hopping onto a bicycle, in suit and tie no less, to pedal off to another day of executive decision-making.
The governor means to be helpful, no doubt. But if his New Energy Economy is going to drive the cost of electricity so high that I need to worry about whether the greenish light on my Powerbook is draining my wallet, I'd just as soon not be told about it yet.
As obsessive as Ritter sometimes seems about polishing his environmental credentials, he's still a model of sobriety compared to several of his counterparts across the country. Utah Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman, for example, announced last month that most state offices - covering 17,000 of 24,000 employees - will move to a four-day work week in August in order to save energy. Corrections, human services and a few other critical agencies will stay on a five-day schedule, but everyone else will get Friday off.
"The new schedule should save energy, resources and taxpayer dollars while it reduces automobile emissions by a day's worth of commutes," gushed The Salt Lake Tribune in a predictable kowtow to the Great Green Spirit.
Ah, but what about the convenience of the people who pay the salaries of those 17,000 workers - you know, taxpayers?
In terms of convenience, the editorialist confides, "the plan is a trade-off."
Trade-off? More like a poke in the eye.
If you can do business with the state on just four days instead of five, it is only mildly helpful that offices open an hour earlier and close an hour later. But consumer convenience seems to have been furthest from the minds of the policy's architects. If they'd wanted to minimize the toll on consumers, after all, at the very least they wouldn't force citizens to wait three straight days for an office to open. They'd have designated Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday as the third day off - not Friday.
In a contest between taxpayer convenience and a three-day weekend for state workers, however, the choice was never in doubt.
Not to be too picky, finally, but does anyone really know whether shifting state workers to a four-day schedule saves "energy, resources and taxpayer dollars" while reducing "automobile emissions by a day's worth of commutes"?
Let's concede that taxes are saved through reduced maintenance and utility bills. Meanwhile, are those idled workers going to sit quietly at home all day, venturing outside only in order to futz around in their yards? I often drive as much or more on my days off as when I'm working - day trips to the mountains; pilgrimages to Lowe's or a distant nursery for a home-improvement project - and I suspect many others share similar habits.
"One of the jokes is that one of the biggest benefits will be for golf courses," quipped an information technology official, cutting at last to the heart of the matter.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
July 8, 2008
6:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
The only real savings is the cost of energy to the state for that extra day off. No lights, heating and cooling at the state agencies; or at least considerably less on that one day.
But what happens is that now those 17000 households are consuming that energy on their day off. In effect, the state employees are subsidizing the state coffers so it can make this "feel good, do green" announcement.
But, hey, the greenies never let logic get in the way of agenda.
July 8, 2008
7:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
There's plenty of illogic to go around in and outside of government these days. Sometimes government comes up with knee-jerk, feel good solutions that fool no one. Other times, it leads by example. I feel there is a little bit of both in this story.
Ritter, by suggesting we turn off our computers, and, I might add peripherals and televisions for that matter when they leave in the morning only makes sense to this fiscal conservative. Those little vampires as the power suppliers like to call them, frequently use 100 watts when they are "sleeping". That adds up over time. My home televisions and computers are only actually "awake" for about 4 hours per day. The rest of the time, I turn them off at the power strip. Obsessive? Not once it becomes automatic. It is very easy to save several hundred dollars per year in the average home per year. You turn off lights right?, so until they do the right thing and manufacture TVs and computers that truly are off when they are "off". you owe it to yourselves to save a little money. Otherwise you are truly "asleep at the switch".
July 8, 2008
7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
ollie writes:
Carroll would rather be part of the problem than part of the solution just so he can whine about something every day.
July 8, 2008
8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Gene,
Your comment reminds me of the first time I bought recycled toilet paper. When I showed it to my wife she said: "This is where I draw the line." She thought,.... well you know!
As for my LED Christmas lights (love 'em!), they only use 5 watts/strand, so even fiscally conservative me can rationalize a bunch of them. It would also take more than outlawing Christianity (by the way Gene, millions of liberals are Christians too) to "stow" my LEDs, wouldn't lights also have to be banned, even the super efficient ones?
July 8, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
wmurdo writes:
So, the State of Utah will give better service to its customers (the citizens who pay their salaries)...by providing less of it? Brillant!
July 8, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
ollie writes:
Gene too would rather be part of the problem than part of the solution. It's also called head in sand syndrome.
July 8, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Gene,
I'm sure she would agree that it would be the basis for a great sitcom. We need to give more thought to the name however.
One misconception I think you have though, is that I do all the efficiency things in the name of Global Warming. Actually, that's the fiscally conservative me ( my wife would tell you that would all fit into the same sitcom). I'm still working on names: "life on the cheap"?, " The world through green tinted glasses?". Of course, I would prefer something more along the lines of "Roadless Warrior"!
July 8, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Well ....
I'd be glad to unplug all of that stuff if I didn't have to crawl behind desks and bookshelves, etc.
Perhaps a marketing opportunity for somebody to develop a power strip with a remote on/off switch?
July 8, 2008
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
smith writes:
"by the way Gene, millions of liberals are Christians too" -Greenleaf
Really? Do they believe in the same Jesus who tells of an abundant earth? Or are they more of a Obama variety Christian - joining a church for political expedience (confessed to in his autobiography) and then leaving the church for the same reason.
I am curious. Liberals like to wear the Christian lapel pin but often don't seem to get the core concepts
July 8, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
Sasquatch,
Do you think Ritter tells himself, "Baby, you are so smart... and they are so dumb."?
July 8, 2008
12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
TryThinking,
An off topic question that's been vexing me:
Why is the increase in the retail price of gasoline so dramatically smaller than the increase in the wholesale price of crude?
(I know, you're an electricity generation guy, but I thought maybe you might have heard something in the circles that you run in ... )
There appears to be such a smaller mark down now that I kind of wonder if it wasn't 10 years ago that the oil companies were *gouging.*
July 8, 2008
2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
smith at 11:36, Jesus was a liberal. Maybe you ought to go back and read a real version of the gospels. He talked about wealth inequality and disparity, looking out after each other, and even visiting those in prison. Try reading and truly comprehending what Jesus said in Matthew about the sheep and the goats.
OK, so unplugging everything in sight that isn't being used is unrealistic for most folks. But I'll guarantee you that Vincent's powerbook, when it's plugged in and turned off, is using electricity for purposes beyond powering the green LED.
Vincent is right on another score: a) The Utah governor's executive order does seem to be publicity driven. b) It's government by fiat, something I thought conservative Utahns didn't like. c) He should have staggered the days off, so that citizens could enjoy government services 5 days a week.
July 8, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
Konyok,
I don't know. My guess would be that a barrel of crude is the raw material and its cost only makes up a fraction of the cost of a gallon of gas. You have refining costs etc. Let’s say for example if a $4.00 gallon of gas cost $2.00 in raw material (crude) and $2.00 to refine, taxes, transportation etc. that don’t necessarily double with crude prices (Fixed costs). Then a doubling of the crude price would only translate into a $6.00 gas or a 50% increase in the price of gasoline. As you said I’m an electric guy, but that is my guess.
July 8, 2008
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
TryThinking,
That's just the thing, we've seen a 10 fold increase in the price of crude in the past 10 years, but not even a 3 fold increase in the price of gasoline. The standard reckoning is that 17 gallons of gasoline can be refined from one barrel of crude. Even without refining costs we should be paying like $8. I just don't get it.
Meanwhile, here's something that you ought to read from the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/art...
July 8, 2008
3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
Konyok,
Here is an intersting story about "Big Oil", from the LA Times no less. Maybe calling Bob Schaffer "Big Oil" will come back and bit these folks.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi...
July 8, 2008
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
The four day 10 hour work week makes a lot of sense. You just cut potential energy use by 20% with this simple concept, not to mention a 20% reduction in your weekly expenses. Why would you not take advantage of this and make the most of it? One less commute, one less business lunch, one less computer/fax/printer fired up... The silly stuff about people burning just as much energy on their days off only applies to the stupid people that think they are entitled to do so. Most of us would use the extra time for what it was meant for, less energy consumption, time with family and friends and home projects to conserve more energy and save more money. Some of you sure know how to make fools of your selves with your negative attitudes about saving money and making positive contributions to your communities and the planet in general. Talk about feelings of entitlement and being a burden to others, look in the mirror bone heads! Besides, many 4/10 programs still cover all 5 week days with split shifts, so there is very litte decline in available services, but some of you must not be able to think things through, just be an echo chamber mouth piece!
July 8, 2008
4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Trythinking,
I've been looking for you. You and Konyok might find this interesting.
http://www.azonano.com/Details.asp?Ar...
A fellow on another thread asked me if I had heard of this. I hadn't of course., but thought it was potentially a grand idea. I thought I would run it by my favorite power engineer to get your reaction. Does this look practical? Expensive? Or...?
July 8, 2008
4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
Greenleaf,
It is probably too expensive right now. However, in the 80s I worked my way through college selling TRS-80 computers at Radio Shack (I've always been a geek). They had 4 k of RAM and a cassette tape drive, they cost about $5,000. Nano technology has a lot of promise. I read somewhere that they have developed a nano paint that forms carbon tubes that convert sunlight to electricity. Considering what has been done with computers in 25 something years, imagine were solar could be. We just need conventional fossil fuels to get there.
July 8, 2008
11:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
TonyB writes:
Does anyone recall what the rate for our Denver WATER used to be before we started conserving it? Now THAT is a truly depressing thought.
July 9, 2008
7:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
milerhigher writes:
Trythinking, I've been looking for you too, since two questions were asked of you in another thread that you stopped writing on (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...). Jay asked if you believe that man has any effect on the earth's natural warming cycles (you'd implied climate may not be warming, if it's warming it's nature not man, and that if so we couldn't stop it). I asked for a cite to a GAO report that you said found that most 'Draconian' efforts for reducing warming have a minor effect. I looked for it on GAO website but couldn't find anything like that. Care to answer now?
July 9, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
milehigher,
Sorry not the GAO but the CBO.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/colle...
July 9, 2008
6:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
milerhigher writes:
Trythinking, thanks for the cite for the Congressional Budget Office papers. I found several documents there on policy to address warming.
I don't think they say what you think they say, that most Draconian efforts for reducing warming have a minor effect. The CBO docs generally accept that warming is occurring, that it is linked to man-made emissions, and that our action or inaction has effects and consequences. The most recent doc says taking action is justified in order to avoid "catastrophic collective harm", then gets into the more complicated questions of benefits and costs, and merits of the mechanisms that might be used.
Some quotes from the beginning of that document:
"Global climate change is one of the nation’s most significant long-term policy challenges. Human activities are producing increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2. The accumulation of those gases in the atmosphere is expected to have potentially serious and costly effects on regional climates
throughout the world. The magnitude of such damage remains highly uncertain. But there is growing recognition that some degree of risk exists for the damage to be large and perhaps even catastrophic. Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions would be beneficial in limiting the degree of damage associated with climate change, especially the risk of significant damage.
"However, decreasing those emissions would also impose costs on the economy—in the case of CO2, because much economic activity is based on fossil fuels, which release carbon in the form of carbon dioxide when they are burned. Most analyses suggest that a carefully designed program to begin lowering CO2 emissions would
produce greater benefits than costs."
..."The risk of potentially catastrophic damage from climate change can justify taking action to reduce that risk in much the same way that the hazards we all face as individuals motivate us to buy insurance. Some of society’s resources may best be devoted to addressing climate change even if the most severe risks
ultimately do not materialize."
July 9, 2008
7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
milehigher,
Try this.
Here are 2 absolute facts.
1) The Climate on planet Earth has always changed and always will change.
2) Trying to fix it will cost a fortune.
BTW I'm done with this subject. You are free to believe (and that all it really is a belief in climate models)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cf...
July 10, 2008
12:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
milerhigher writes:
Trythinking - putting aside that you're skipping onto new arguments now that the material you cited undermined the last arguments you'd made - I'll try the 'absolute facts' you now suggest.
1) 'The Climate on planet Earth has always changed and always will change.' Response: interestingly, one has to rely on science (which your other arguments cast strong doubt about) to accept this as absolute fact, but regardless, no argument from me. But it's also beside the point. Point being that the most credible science we have (models supported by mountains of evidence) demonstrates current warming trends are linked to man-made emissions.
2) 'Trying to fix it will cost a fortune'. Absolute fact? Absolutely not. That statement is subjective, pure and simple. For example, the CBO article you cited (written by economists) stated that most analyses suggest benefits would outweigh costs - that's economic speak for "more fortune will be made than lost". Looking at costs without benefits is not a "factual" thing to do. For another example, put yourself in the shoes of your grandchildren who are growing up in a world bearing serious (perhaps catastrophic) economic and social costs associated with severe warming that could have been avoided by incremental costs over a few decades by their parents and grandparents. I really doubt you, family, and friends would be viewing that avoided incremental cost as much of a fortune in the big picture.
Scientific climate models and the tremendous, growing evidence to support them is simply "belief"? Gimme a break. I think I picked up from previous thread that you're in the power business. If so I'm genuinely surprised that someone working in an industry rooted in science and economics so easily dismisses both when it comes to this issue.
But at least your second statement finally gets to the real issues going on here: differing views about costs and risks, and who should bear both. That's a debate about values and ethics as much as anything. The values and ethics I subscribe to say pay somewhat more now (though there's even more money to be made in it, say the economists) so that our kids and grandkids have a good chance of avoiding disastrous costs and risks in the future. You previously called this kind of thinking a 'gamble', but inaction and its potential costs on our descendants is the real gamble here.
Sorry you're done with the subject, but for the record, you did respond to my post to kick off this back-and-forth.