while disregarding the main issue: Jorj's assertion of change
is that the main issue?
I didn't even see the reference to Obama, but I did see this and it is political: "Meanwhile, the very corporations that pay millions for PR to create the impression of energy-efficient and environmentally-conscientious behavior lobby vigorously for the opposite - and get what they want. The very market forces that many say will save us are in fact promoting the worst possible outcomes, in the name of profit."
I responded to Rob S because I don't want a revolution like we saw in Tunisia. And I don't see automobiles or coal or oil as evil, as they are often portrayed. They were and are, simply the best solutions for the needs of the times where they are used.
But....if the main issue is my assertion of change. Let's address it. There is a wikipedia link below for references so that you don't have to rely on personal anecdotes.
Wikipedia estimates that there are 2.5 million telecommuters (see wiki link). This is out of a workforce of about 140 million employed workers bls.gov but doesn't include self-employed workers. Which legitimately they should be included in this statistic for our purposes.
Estimates from that same wikipedia article suggest that up to 50 million workers could work from home effectively. It also calculates that if those 50 million workers did telecommute one half of the time, that 280,000,000 barrels of oil could be saved per year.
And to bring it back to technology...the internet and laptops and cellphones have made telecommuting a realistic option for operating a business. Our government can make the business environment hostile to working from home by regulating what services the service providers can charge for.
Change is happening. A conservative estimate of 2% of the workforce is already telecommuting with a potential of 40%. This has the potential to impact the amount of oil used by a much more significant amount than a 5mpg savings, which as you suggest, may just cause more use of the vehicle anyway.
When we push for a government solution and are successful, then that solution becomes institutionalized. But what if it is the wrong solution? What if there are better solutions?
en.wikipedia.org
Telecommuting statistics Estimates suggest that over fifty million U.S. workers (about 40% of the working population) could work from home at least part of the time,[4] yet in 2008, only 2.5 million employees (not including the self-employed) considered their home their primary place of business.[5]
Occasional telecommuters— those who work remotely (though not necessarily at home) —totaled 17.2 million in 2008.[6]
Very few companies employ large numbers of home-based full-time staff. The call center industry is one notable exception to this; several U.S.-based call centers employ thousands of home-based workers. For most employees, the option to work from home is granted as an employee benefit; most do so only part of the time.[7]
In 2009 the Office of Personnel Management reported that approximately 102,000 Federal employees telework.[8]
In the next three years, public and private sector IT decision makers expect telework to increase by sixty five percent and thirty three percent, respectively.[9]
Potential BenefitsTelecommuting offers benefits to communities, employers, and employees.
For communities, telecommuting can offer fuller employment (by increasing the employ-ability of proximal or circumstantially marginalized groups, such as Work at home parents and caregivers, the disabled, retirees, and people living in remote areas), reduces traffic congestion and traffic accidents, relieves the strain on transportation infrastructures, reduces greenhouse gases, saves fuel, reduces energy use, improves disaster preparedness, and reduces terrorism targets.
For companies, telecommuting expands the talent pool, reduces the spread of illness, reduces costs, increases productivity, reduces their carbon footprint and energy usage, offers an inexpensive method of complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), reduces turnover and absenteeism, improves employee morale, offers a continuity of operations strategy, improves their ability to handle business across multiple timezones, and hastens their cultural adaptability. Full-time telework can save companies approximately $20,000 per employee.[11]
For individuals, telecommuting, or more specifically, work from home arrangements, improves work-life balance, reduces their carbon footprint and fuel usage, frees up the equivalent of 15 to 25 workdays a year—time they would have otherwise spent commuting, and saves between $4,000 and $21,000 per year in travel and work-related costs (not including daycare).[12] When gas prices average $3.00 per gallon, the average full-time employee who commutes 5 days per week spends $138.80 per month on gasoline. If 53% of white-collar employees could telework 2 days a week, they could collectively save 9.7 billion gallons of gas and $38.2 billion a year.[13]
Half-time telecommuting by those with compatible jobs (40%) and a desire to do so (79%) would save companies, communities, and employees over $650 billion a year—the result of increased productivity, reduced office expense, lower absenteeism and turnover, reduced travel, less road repairs, less gas consumption, and other savings.[14]
[edit] Environmental BenefitsTelecommuting gained more ground in the United States in 1996 after "the Clean Air Act amendments were adopted with the expectation of reducing carbon dioxide and ground-level ozone levels by 25 percent."[15] The act required companies with over 100 employees to encourage car pools, public transportation, shortened workweeks, and telecommuting. In 2004, an appropriations bill was enacted by Congress to encourage telecommuting for certain Federal agencies. The bill threatened to withhold money from agencies that failed to provide telecommuting options to all eligible employees.
If the 40% of the U.S. population that holds telework-compatible jobs and wants to work from home did so half of the time,
The nation would save 280,000,000 barrels (45,000,000 m3) of oil (37% of Gulf oil imports)
The environment would be saved the equivalent of taking 9 million cars permanently off the road.
The energy potential from the gas savings would total more than twice what the U.S. currently produces from all renewable energy sources combined.[16] |
