An end of cheap oil toolbox
I spoke to Jeanette this morning about a peak oil “tool box” the Greens are launching this afternoon. The interview is here (mp3, 6.53mins, 1.6MB).
The full package is here and the press release explaining it is here.
This is the second in a series of “Green Solutions” we’re unveiling during the election campaign.
It comes at an opportune time, with the Herald and David Farrar both arguing today that the Government should basically do nothing about the looming end of cheap oil.
It’s great that this issue is unleashing a good deal of debate…
Bookmark to:
August 18th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
With oil prices this high, Greens have a real opportunity to score some political points here.
I generally like the efficiency idea, but why not address some of the causes of high energy use, like the outdated notion that people have to work in an officeplace in order to be working. Commuting is a complete waste of energy, time, and efficiency.
There is a strong and growing movement in other countries to increase the availability of work-at-home jobs. Government should be encouraging people to work at home with tax credits (both for companies and workers).
The fewer of us required to commute downtown to work, the less oil we use.
Let’s not have 1950’s solutions when we have 21st Century technology at our disposal. The Internet makes it possible to teleconference instantly, make free phone calls. etc. Many government workers could provide just as good services working out of home offices as they do in a central office.
An American study even found that people were more efficient when they worked at home, unencumbered by all of the distractions. Workers also have the extra time every day from not having to commute.
With the increased capabilities of mobile phones and laptops (T3G), many people will be able to take their office with them anywhere.
There’s no downside.
August 18th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
yes, absolutely spot on andrew. I just want to point that the Green Peak Oil toolbox does address this, it says that a policy proposal is:
“Invest in communications infrastructure (eg broadband) so that virtual meetings are a real alternative to travel.”
and frog has previously covered this here:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/08/05/a-green-network/
cheers
August 18th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Andrew
There IS a downside, as we learned at JPL. We have always been connected rather well, and the individuals who do the work are seldom on less than a real broadband connection… but being able to collaborate easily, debug hardware and discuss things face to face is still more effective than working solely online.
In the end nobody ever took more than two days out of five at home on any project, and most of us didn’t take any. The second reason it never caught on in the US is that it is awfully easy to outsource the worker you never see, since substituting the guy in India who works for $20/day for the guy in Glendale who costs $400/day is a pretty easy call for most managers who have a bottom line to worry about.
The downside from the productivity standpoint is related to communication though, and while there is work that can be done effectively from home, it isn’t as common as work that requires real interaction with other real people.
Then there are the specialized tools. SW License hassles. It really isn’t as easy as it looks.
If I worked in Wellington I’d take the train… but I’d still go to work. I have two kids, one of them is 1.5 years old. I can just imagine my efficiency
respectfully
BJ
August 18th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Thanks for those links, Stuey. Greens have a winner issue here.
BJ: Sun Microsystems has moved a large portion of its workforce to home offices, and it has saved the company millions in office real estate. I think the SW license issues would go away if there was more of a culture of working at home.
As for working face-to-face, my experience working in an office is that 90% of so-called face time is wasted time.
If we are serious about getting people off the roads, in the short term encouraging work-at-home schemes is a great way. A lot of oil is wasted every day just on moving bodies and cars back and forth between workplace and home. If it is not absolutely necessary (like hospital work or the police), let’s do away with all of the unnecessary movement.
Think about the time savings. If you commuted 1 hour to and from work every day (30 mins each way), that would be 240 hours saved in a year by working from home. That’s six extra weeks a year of 8-hour workdays. Not bad. Then there’s the oil cost. I bet it would easily be $500 to $1000.
I wouldn’t worry about the Indians telecommuting. Occasionally one would have to make it into the office (say once or twice a month), and it would be prohibitively expensive to ask the Indian to do that.
I think business will eventually start to look at the overseas data and decide it is in their best interest to let people work from home, as they will have to start paying them more to make up for commuting costs otherwise.
Our oil problem needs addressing before they take their sweet time to decide this, though, and that’s why I support the Greens’ position in favour of “home work” and broadband infrastructure.
There are lots of good Yahoo news articles in the past few weeks on telecommuting. Here’s the link:
http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=telecommuting&c=
Businesses like the bottom line implications, and employees consider it a perk. And we use less oil.
August 18th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Look at this:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-05/08-16-05/l02ca467.htm
######quote from the article#########
A major mistake is not realizing the amount of money that can be saved in office space, which can be an important business incentive and justification at most for-profit organizations to introduce telecommuting in the first place.
“With a remote work force in place, AT&T saved $34 million in real estate costs in 2004,” Martine reported.
Another error is in not trusting your employees. “A very small portion of workers will take advantage of a teleworking option — however, they cannot disguise ineffectiveness for long,” she said. “Besides, most employees become far more productive.”
A serious roadblock to implementing teleworking is that many employers strongly believe the people they employ are “happier working face to face.” But a recent study indicates that 66 percent of the company’s remote workers report they’re “happier in their jobs since beginning their teleworking arrangements — and 69 percent are more satisfied in their personal and family lives.”
The AT&T experience makes a strong case for allowing workers to have more balance in their lives by establishing well-thought-out telecommuting arrangements. And it also makes a strong case for the advantages of flexible work arrangements for employers, too.
The difference: According to a Work and Family report by the AFL-CIO, recent research finds that “flextime is available to nearly 62 percent of workers with incomes of more than $71,000 a year — but to less than 31 percent of working parents with incomes less than $28,000 annually. So the workers who most need supportive policies to help them meet their family responsibilities are less likely to have them.”
###############
August 18th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
this mean i can get my free trade pirate programa from india chipper, and blokes fixitup fair trade, when microsoft crash bang down, no play,
August 18th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
I’ve had a quick look through the two links, and would comment thus.
Lets start with the less worthy article, that of the Herald. As I’m not a green party member I’ll not comment on their aspersions on the party, other than to note that the Green Party are recent converts to the oil issue, and I doubt very much anyone actualy wants the oil to run out.
Its beyond reasonable argument that world has been running out of oil since the first barrel was extracted, but I doubt we’ll ever actually run out. When the sun expands to gobble the earth there will still be oil in the ground. But we’ve had the easy stuff, that which is readily available, from relatively easy to get places, in relatively high volumes, at relatively low cost, both in monetary and (more importantly) in energy terms. Oil is still dirt cheap, lets go all cliche’d and compare its cost with bottle water. Oil can cost dozens, if not hundreds of times what it costs today.
But what The Herald failes to recognize is that the oil shocks of the 70s were political events, whereas whats happening now is technical (lack of enough refining capacity) and geologic (most countries producing less oil than they did several years ago). The refining problem wont be solved in any meaningful was as its not economic to do so.
So yes, prices are on the up and up, supply and demand, and as any schoolboy economist knows, the only way to relax prices is to increase supply or reduce demand. There is so much oil flowing today that to increase supply means lot more big finds, and they’ve simply not been happening. Reduction of demand is the only other possibility that will affect price, which given that for most years from the first barrel demand has been increasing, may be hard to accomplish.
Oil is extracted for two purposes, firstly as an energy source, and secondly as a raw material for a huge percentage of the planet’s goods. As its gets more difficult to extract oil, its relative value as an energy source will diminish, and more and more energy input will be needed for the extraction. As extraction gets harder, it is unclear where a suitable energy source this large is available from.
Secondly, Mr Farrar. Who at least sticks to things he knows something of.
Of course, on his principal point he’s right, you can just leave petrol prices to the market, and prices will rise and eventually level based on the laws of supply and demand. What this means, of course, is that the richest fractions of the population can afford petrol without restriction, and as you go down the social ladder you get to some point where petrol cant be afforded.
By implementing rationing you ensure that everyone, irrespective of social status and ability to pay has the opportunity to purchase petrol, and if they dont want the stuff, or need money more than petrol, they can sell their allocation to someone more wanting.
Which approach you favour, of course, goes directly to the heart of your political position. Neither approach is right or wrong per se, they are just choices about what sort of country we wish to live in.
On telecommuting - for those job functions that are amenable to telecommuting, it is a wonderful solution. However, the issue with telecommuting is that for many folks their job environment (and especially the place and the people) are at the core of their “real” life, and without this social arrangement many folks are uncomfortable. Its a problem that remains to be solved.
August 18th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
1. On the ttolbox page, the link to the Aussie Green Vehicle Guide is broken
2. I wish people would stop using the term Peak Oil. We do not know if we are at the peak of production, usage etc. We will only be able to identify a peak once we have passed it. And it is more than about oil too. The focus really needs to be on energy efficiency and making the best of what we’ve got access to. Many people these days turn off when the term Peak Oil is used. Ask them if they want to make more efficient use of energy - I reckon many more respond to that, especially if it affects their wallet.
3. You have plans for Auckland and Wellington - what about other main centres? Hamilton, Christhchurch, Dunedin etc? This isn’t just an issue for the two most political cities?
4. Broadband. Mark my words, real broadband and true telecommuting will only occur once the local loop has been unbundled from Telecom. Until such time, Telecom, as the monopoly, will screw every last cent out of it. They are already holding back the capabilities of DSL in New Zealand so that it can’t be effectively used for voice-over-IP or video-conferencing without having to take out a loan first. And there are few-to-none reasonable alternatives to DSL. Funnily enough it was Labour that decided mid-2004 not to unbundle the local loop - the Labour Cabinet overrode Paul Swains recommendation to unbundle the local loop! Go figure.
August 18th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
thanks Bernard, I have fixed the broken link.
August 18th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Bernard
I disagree with you on local loop unbundling.
You are correct, all those bad things you describe are happening, but with LLU there will be a massive divide between those in the urban centres who will have several providors falling over themselves to provide anything the end-user wants, and those of us outside the centres, who will be left with Telecom, who will have even less incentive to deliver equitable services.
My supporting evidence for this is the bitstream service, which - today - enables any ISP who want to to provide unlimited broadband, but with (I think) one exception, they are not doing so. They all promised, and then retracted. I do not trust other ISPs any more than telecom.
August 18th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
dbuckley - unfortunately there are limits with UBS. As I currently understand it, Telecom, as wholesaler of UBS has limited the upstream rate to 128kbs (which may have been set by the Telecommunications Commissioner), and also has introduced higher latency. This combination makes it relatively little use for VOIP and videoconferencing. Only when there is more competition will these be viable options.
I do agree with you that rural users are somewhat hamstrung by options - given the great expense to provide mostly unprofitable service. I’m not sure what the solution is.
Project PROBE appears to have been a failure with many rural schools unable to afford Telecoms monthly bandwidth charges when they have more important things to spend the money on.
August 18th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
The solution to the LLU problem is obvious. Split Telecom up into 2 seperate companies - 1 wholesaler that operates the network and the unbundled local loop, and 1 retail that provides internet/broadband/tolls etc..on a level playing field with other competitors. I would also put the wholesale company in charge of the Kiwi Share, to ensure 99% of every home is connected with a basic phone service and 56k internet.
And just to p*** off the right wingers, I would even suggest that state owned BCL could very well be a good contender to add telecom’s network to its extensive portfolio.
August 18th, 2005 at 9:56 pm
Millsy, I’m almost scared to say it, but I pretty much agree with you and have come to the same conclusion. The wholesale side of the business does need to be taken away from TEL retail. Whether it goes to BCL or a new SOE - I don’t know and don’t really care. But I feel it is the only way we will get true competition in retail services. It may also help resolve issues with number portability and maybe even mobile interconnects. Then you’d just have to levy the retailers for maintainence and upgrades to the network. I don’t think New Zealand is big enough to support two communication networks.
Only problem is that TEL represents around 18% of the NZ Sharemarket. Unbundling the loop could have a significant impact on the economy during TEL’s revaluation.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:37 am
I wonder if Project Probe is a failure in the, what was it, two? regions where telecom didn’t win the tender? It’s clear that telecom are the baddies in all of this. And Clear are just as bad. Thank heavens for government regulation or it would be even worse.
August 20th, 2005 at 7:21 am
I’m in North Canterbury, and for Probe it was not Telecom but Woosh Wireless who got the job, and they singularly failed to deliver. They’ve managed a bit of a presence in Christchurch, and area already well served, but in terms of rural Canty, they did, well, nothing.
I had high hopes for Woosh, but now I’m afraid they just join that group of lying snakes known as ISPs. As a semi rural dweller, all I say is thank heavens for Telecom. What a terrible thing to have to say.
I have no answers for what to do with Telecom, just about every scenario I see has more losers than winners. The exception might be regulation, but its still not perfect.
September 16th, 2005 at 5:45 am
I have just watched this documentry it is way better than End of Suburbia
and only 30 min long
robert
http://www.oilcrash.com
MORE DETAILS:
Production Company: TROPOS DOKUMENTAR, Oslo, Norway
Producer/Director/Cameraman: Amund Prestegard, 52, Norwegian.
Experienced in all aspects of filmmaking since 1972.
Prestegard runs his own production company, TROPOS DOKUMENTAR since 1995.
The film �PEAK OIL — imposed by Nature� was nominated �Best professional documentary� at The Norwegian Documentary Film Festival 2005.
The idea for this film came about when Prestegard in the fall of 2002, during research for another project, became aware of the global oil depletion situation when reading the works of Campbell, Laherrere and Simmons.
——————————————————————————–
In the film Dr.Colin Campbell takes us to Stavanger in Norway where he worked the last 10 years of his professional career. He explains the aspects of discovery and subsequent production, the increase and the decline, and the fact that this will happen to the world as a whole very soon. Dr. Campbell is also our �guide� throughout the film. Our �anchorman�, so to speak.
Richard Webb is a financial risk analyst with broad experience from some of the world’s largest investment banks. He expresses his opinion about signs that the market is reaching an extremity, and that this tends to endorse what Colin Campbell and the ASPO are saying; that we are near the peak. Webb underlines the importance to understand that the dramatic event is not when we will run out of oil, but rather what will happen when there is less tomorrow than there is today.
Norwegian petroleum geologist Olve Torvanger has 30 years of world wide experience in seismic surveys, searching for oil. He points to the seriousness of a situation in which our tools become ever more sophisticated, but we are finding less and less.
Matthew Simmons is Chairman and CEO of Simmons & Co.International, one of the worlds largest energy investment banking firms. He expresses a deep concern for the urgent need to take measures to prevent that the decline shall destroy our society. He refers to the word �crisis� as: A temporary problem that has been left unattended so long that it has become permanent !
Aage Figenschou, norwegian board member of Simmons & Co expresses concern over the oil companies’ downgrading of their reserves. He believes that we are near the peak, but underlines that it will not make people run to fill up their cars. What we will see, he says, is a constant pressure towards ever higher prices, a rather negative thing…
Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review in London draws up the lines of a need for a much stronger involvement from government that could go as far as deciding who can have, and who can not. The Government, he claims, will find themselves in a war-like situation.
Investigative reporter Michael C.Ruppert is expressing his views on the fact that Dr.Campbell was approached in his own village in Western Ireland by US intelligence. Ruppert claims that what the CIA most of all wants to know is; �how close is the ASPO to penetrating the public consciousness with the issues of PEAK OIL and how close is the public to acknowledging what it’s going to mean�. According to Ruppert the so-called �war on terrorism� is nothing but a war to control the last reamining oil reserves of the planet.
US president George W. Bush expresses in the film worries over the fact that the US now imports over half of their crude oil, and that very often they import that from countries that �don’t particularly like us,�… �that it could jeopardize the national security to be dependent on sources of energy from countries that don’t care for America,-what we stand for, -what we love.�