TECHdodo

The cash for clunkers program has been getting a lot of press. A government stimulus plan to encourage people to reduce our dependence on oil by giving them $4500 to get their old gas guzzlers off the road. The program is so successful, it burned through its first billion dollars in a week and they are seeking another 2 billion to keep it going. To get the money, a vehicle has to be replaced with a more fuel efficient vehicle and then the old vehicle is taken off the road. The new vehicle will still use fuel though, no matter how much more efficient it may be. It is still going to require roads and bridges for it to travel on. It is still going to take up space in rush hour traffic. There will also be less vehicles available under $4500, because they are being taken off the road. For people who can’t even afford a $4500 vehicle, there are going to be a lot less cars available.

This program also doesn’t benefit, in any way, those people who use options far better than the daily drive to get to work. The person that walks, rides their bike, takes the train, or even telecommutes. If it is fuel consumption and energy dependence you want to reduce, it would seem there are better incentives than giving people money to buy cars. I am not a fan of more taxes, but if you want people to use less gas, hit those who waste it where it hurts, in their pocket book. Raise the tax on the thing you don’t want people to use. When gas was over $4 a gallon, people couldn’t give away their big gas guzzling SUVs. People were trading them in for more fuel efficient vehicles, and the government didn’t have to give them money as an incentive to do so. A higher gas tax would also be an incentive for those who are already finding alternate ways of getting around. Higher gas taxes would not hurt those who already walk, ride their bikes, or telecommute, anywhere near as much as those who drive to work every day.

I was a telecommuter for years. It was great, and I learned to appreciate how very little I really needed to be in an office. Now, I commute. Even with a fairly fuel efficient car, I probably use about 7 gallons of gas a week. That is over 300 gallons a year. Maybe not a lot for one individual, but when you multiply that by the millions of people who drive to work each day, even fuel efficient cars use a lot of fuel. They are only more efficient in relation to other cars. Even if you get cars that are 100% electric, they still need to get that energy from somewhere. In the US, it would most likely be from coal. Even if you somehow managed to build a car that did not need any fuel, you still need roads and infrastructure to handle all those cars for the commuters. Even if you switch to mass transit, there are still infrastructure costs to build the transit systems and to handle the volume needed for commuting time.

Telecommuting on the other hand eliminates all that. With email, instant communication through IM, VOIP, Video calling and the ability to share your computer screen with others, I actually found it was easier to interact with people who were set up with the right tools for telecommuting than it was to work in an office. It was easier for me to work with my coworker in Europe than it was to work with the guy down the hall. I always knew when he was at his desk because I could see his status in real time. I could ask him if he was busy before I called him so I knew he would have time to talk, rather than interrupting him from what he was doing. If he was really busy, he could even indicate that he didn’t want to be disturbed on his status, so I wouldn’t even need to ask. Also, if you have a quiet place to work at home, there are less distractions, you can work when you are most alert, take breaks when you need them. After having done it for a few years, I really believe in it for those jobs where it is possible.

Not every job is telecommutable. Manufacturing, hospitals, public works. Even if you could reduce the number of people that have to commute every day, you would still need roads, you would still need trains, but you wouldn’t need the same capacity you need to handle all the commuters every day. Telecommuters also reduce the need for as much office space, even further reducing the use of energy needed for heating and cooling and electricity. It is a win win situation.

If you are going to give people cash for trading in inefficient vehicles, why not give incentives to companies that allow their workers to telecommute? Even if they allowed it now, they would realize savings with less overhead for office space, heating and cooling, insurance, etc.. You also get happier employees with flexible working hours and such. When I first started telecommuting, the company did it because they had to, not because they appreciated the benefits. It is a new way of thinking. To say some managers were skeptical would be an understatement.  After a while though they came to realize telecommuters could produce just as much, actually more, working from a home office, than they ever did working in a cubicle. Promoting telecommuting would be good for the government, because getting all those cars off the road would reduce our country’s dependency on fossil fuels. It would reduce the costs associated with constantly expanding and maintaining our roads and bridges. It would be good for employees, because they would get back the time they waste driving back and forth to work. A 30 minute commute is equivalent to 6 weeks lost time per year.

6 weeks of lost productivity. 300+ gallons of gasoline. The cost of maintaining a vehicle and replacing it whenever it wears out. The cost of providing expensive office space and maintaining that office space. The cost of building and maintaining roads and bridges to handle the capacity of everyone driving to and from work Monday through Friday. Commuting is very very expensive, not just for the commuter, but for everyone involved. Using more fuel efficient vehicles will defray that cost a very very small amount compared to what could be accomplished by allowing people to telecommute. Even allowing them to do it just two days per week would reduce fuel consumption 40% instantly. If you are trying to encourage people to reduce energy consumption through some sort of incentive program, it would seem encouraging telecommuting would provide a much bigger bang for the buck than giving away money to buy cars.