An Eight Hours Day energy musing

The 8-hour work day. It’s commemorated and/or celebrated today in two Australian States via a public holiday – called Labour Day in Victoria (the first State to achieve it, in 1856) and Eight Hours Day in Tasmania (the last, in 1874) [1]. Savouring this holiday made me ponder if a shorter work day means lower productivity, all else being equal. My conclusion? I don’t know. A recent a New Yorker article examined an analogous matter. Titled ‘The Efficiency Dilemma’, it asks: ‘If our machines use less energy, will we just use them more?’ [2] Usual wisdom says we’ll use them less. But the writer, David Owen (pictured) [3], disagrees. And he quotes examples to back up his view. He attributes his conclusion to the ‘Jevons paradox’ [4] – that economical fuel use leads to increased consumption – propounded in 1865 by Englishman William Jevons [5]. Nowadays, Owen writes, the phenomenon’s called ‘rebound’. And experts who insist energy rebound’s currently non-existent, are wrong. Thus, seemingly illogically, he advocates inefficient machines: ‘If the only motor vehicle available today were a 1920 Model T, how many miles do you think you’d drive each year…?’ But he discounts mandatory machine inefficiency as unrealistic. His ultimate proposal? Increased energy efficient machines, but costlier energy.

P.S. Samsung’s just unveiled a game-changing prototype LCD TV which is solar powered, i.e it gets all the power it needs from ambient light. You can watch it during the extra leisure time the 8-hour work day’s brought you. Ho hum.

Review Tuesday: 'Later'

Today’s ‘Review Tuesday'. I bet you have one. I certainly have. In my head. A list of things I should do: plant seedlings, mow orchard, sweep floor, wash car. Et cetera. But I’m a procrastinator [1, 2]. I’m not good at much, but I’m good at procrastinating. James Surowiecki’s review article – titled ‘Later’ – in the 11 October New Yorker [3] focuses on procrastination. He writes that it’s always been a basic human impulse, but anxiety about it has emerged only quite recently: the percentage of people who admitted to procrastination troubles quadrupled between 1978 and 2002. So it’s quintessentially modern. And a powerful example of a Greek word akrasia, i.e. doing something against one’s better judgment. Though delay makes us worse off, delay we do. Conversely, it’s not procrastination if the delay’s not detrimental. We often procrastinate not by doing fun tasks, but by doing tasks whose only allure’s that they aren’t what we should be doing. And when we put off something by telling ourselves we’ll do it tomorrow, we overlook that tomorrow the temptation to put it off will be just as strong. Procrastinators know all too well the allures of the salient present, and they want to resist them. They just don’t. The solution (assuming we want one)? In essence, imposing limits and narrowing options. More organisation, and a ‘to do’ list, may help. And importantly, ensuring all items on the ‘to do’ list are worth doing. If you’re a procrastinator, you’d do well to read Surowiecki’s article. Now.

Of men and their heroes

On this last day of autumn 2010, I write of heroes. I’ve written several previous Farmdocs’ Blog posts about heroes. (To access them, write ‘hero’ in the Google search box near the top of the left sidebar.) Whilst my heroes list changes ever changes (mostly by lengthening; but that’s another story), I’m fascinated by my children’s heroes – which tell me about my children and, vicariously, about myself:

What a marvellous story darling Kate told on her Foxs Lane blog two days ago [1]. Dreams do come true. It’s inspirational and poignant that one of darling Brendon’s is doing just that. To meet his hero Joel Salatin is one thing. To meet him on Brendon and Kate’s farm is another. And for Joel to be so complimentary – in pouring rain traipsing through mud – is close to if not the ultimate. Well done, Brenno. You’re a star – and a hero of mine. Not that you need it – at all – but my seal of approval’s on Joel as one of yours.

Staying with heroes, today’s the 80th birthday of one of mine: Clint Eastwood [2, 3]. Why’s Clint my hero? One – he’s tall and handsome, of course. Two – he usually plays iconoclasts or other non-mainstream nose-thumbers. Three – he’s now so powerful he can, and does, thumb his nose at Hollywood’s quirks. And four – his film parts are invariably age-appropriate. For a far more esoteric and eloquent homage to Clint, read David Denby’s New Yorker piece here [4]. Happy 80th, Clint.

Ask the (fastidious) pilot

Recently plane travel’s been on my mind. Because in the last few days at least three members of my immediate family have been flying. And tomorrow I’ll be. So far in May there’ve been four major plane crashes [1]. Whilst many many people work hard to prevent crashes, once a plane’s in the air, it all comes down to the performance of the cockpit crew. When I was a nipper the cockpit head honcho was called the pilot. But now it’s the captain. (Why? I know not.) Sweetheart Vivienne’s long said that each time she flies she hopes the captain has a family he/she loves. That’s superstition at it’s irrational best. Me? I’m more pragmatic. I know the occupation of airline captain – being a high status and highly paid one – is sought after. And I guess that because supply exceeds demand, the selection process is rigorous. Also tailored, so successful applicants are level-headed, conscientious and responsible. And that above all, they have impeccable attention to detail. So I’m relieved, and validated, to see this ‘Ask the Pilot’ item on salon.com last Friday [2]. The pilot/writer – Patrick Smith (pictured) [3] – is so fastidious he’s even found errors in the New Yorker. That’s no mean feat. His attention to detail puts mine to shame. Again, no mean feat. Smith doesn’t work for Jetstar, so he won’t be the pilot/captain of my flight to Melbourne tomorrow. But I hope my pilot/captain will be equally exacting. I really do.

farmdoc's blog post number 626

A day or two after COP15 ended last 18 December, prime minister Rudd said Australia will do ‘no more and no less’ than other nations to fight climate change. What an attitude. It makes me abhor Mr Rudd for his manifest mediocrity. He’s a middle-of-the-road man. Bland. Insipid. Gutless. Because of him, my country, which could be a leading nation in the fight against global warming and climate change, is destined to remain in the international ruck. Obscure. Undistinguished. Insignificant. I write these words having just read this article by Evan Osnos in the 21 & 28 December New Yorker. Titled ‘Green Giant: Beijing’s crash program for clean energy’, it’s an expose of China’s innovative and promising green energy program. Which is astounding. Exciting. Hopeful. The same day Mr Rudd announced his (and Australia’s) mediocrity, here’s what Thomas L Friedman wrote in the New York Times about Denmark’s green energy initiatives. Denmark’s population’s under 25% of Australia’s, yet the Danes’ initiatives put us to shame. They make me envious. Ashamed. Despondent. What’s the difference between China and Denmark (on one hand) and Australia (on the other)? Leadership quality, obviously. Also Denmark has no coal resource. And China sees the idiocy of burning coal; and its leadership’s not beholden to the coal industry. Trouble is, in this Australian election year prime minister Rudd’s subservience to the Australian coal industry won’t lessen, and neither will opposition leader Abbott’s. Thus will my nation be prevented from distinguishing itself in responding to the greatest challenge of our time. Ho hum.

farmdoc's blog post number 383

Sweetheart Vivienne’s been a New Yorker subscriber for many years. Apart from the superb writing and interesting content, something setting the New Yorker well above its competitors is its fact checking. Its fact checking quality’s legendary. The gold standard. It’s so easy to assume all other published work’s been fact checked to the New Yorker standard. But doing so’s stupid. Wikipedia, for example, is the world’s largest encyclopaedia freely accessible on the world’s fourth most popular website. But its content’s not invariably fact checked, and it’s open to amendment by people with less than altruistic motives. This article, reporting on the recent Wikipedia Academy 2009 Conference’ in Israel, describes several examples of Wikipedia inaccuracy. These include the repeated removal of reference to Iranian President Ahmadinejad as a Holocaust denier, and the citation of David Irving as an historian. But Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia, said she was “quite comfortable” with Wikipedia’s mistakes which merely reflect fluctuating public discourse. That’s a copout, Ms Gardner. Horse shit. And as for your comment that “I know that more or less the same mistakes can be found in the New York Times”, it’s obvious why your exemplar publication is not the New Yorker. So from now on, I’ll be more circumspect about Wikipedia’s content. Much more.