Fear and Loathing, a Rat Flu Odyssey

[MontuckyFried]

W..... T..... F.....?
9,000 fliers may have had reused swabs jammed up their noses in Indonesia
Five workers were arrested for washing and reusing cotton swabs for testing:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...-in-indonesia/

[stealurface831]

Five workers were arrested for washing and reusing cotton swabs for testing

throw away the keys

[wooley12]

"Maybe". Hey Montucky. Better check to see it your dick fell off. "Maybe" it did and you didn't feel it.

[gretch6364]

Can we try to at least salvage one good thing from this pandemic? If so, how about working from home, at least half of the time? As a country, we have talked a lot about global warming and reducing emissions. Not having to heat and keep the lights on in all the office buildings and then reducing how much everyone drives for commuting to work would sure seem to be a boon for the environment...no?

Instead of our leaders coming out in support of reduced commuting and energy use, they are starting campaigns to encourage workers back to their offices to save the economies of their cities. Surely the left leaning city population and leaders sees the contradiction in this...no?

https://kdvr.com/news/coronavirus/wo...ually-want-to/

Biden needs to start a campaign to encourage work from home arrangements as part of his environmental initiatives. It just make too much sense. Also, American's putting the money spent on commuting and work day lunches could be saved or funneled into more durable goods that are better for the environment.

The skeptic in me thinks it will all go back to how it was before....but this sure seems like a great opportunity for this generation of leaders.

[east or bust]

^You’re right, WFH has done wonders for places like Jackson, Tahoe, et al....


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[altasnob]

As a country, we have talked a lot about global warming and reducing emissions. Not having to heat and keep the lights on in all the office buildings and then reducing how much everyone drives for commuting to work would sure seem to be a boon for the environment...no?

Any environmental benefit of working from home is offset by people moving from dense cities to Aspen and Teton Valley. Believe or not, but people crammed into Bangkok have a smaller carbon footprint, per person, than people in Aspen. If the entire world lived like the average TGR poster, this planet would end in five years.

[old_newguy]

Can we try to at least salvage one good thing from this pandemic? If so, how about working from home, at least half of the time? As a country, we have talked a lot about global warming and reducing emissions. Not having to heat and keep the lights on in all the office buildings and then reducing how much everyone drives for commuting to work would sure seem to be a boon for the environment...no?

Instead of our leaders coming out in support of reduced commuting and energy use, they are starting campaigns to encourage workers back to their offices to save the economies of their cities. Surely the left leaning city population and leaders sees the contradiction in this...no?

https://kdvr.com/news/coronavirus/wo...ually-want-to/

Biden needs to start a campaign to encourage work from home arrangements as part of his environmental initiatives. It just make too much sense. Also, American's putting the money spent on commuting and work day lunches could be saved or funneled into more durable goods that are better for the environment.

The skeptic in me thinks it will all go back to how it was before....but this sure seems like a great opportunity for this generation of leaders.

Something like 12% of the country works in service sector jobs. IE - slinging coffee, janitorial services, serving lunches. The impact of not having workers in offices has other downstream effects.


Would be interesting to see the actual energy breakdown between workers in a dense office + commuting energy consumption versus running a WFH office for anyone. Then consider that WFH is great if you have a dedicated space for it. It’s not so great if you are in a smaller multi family housing scenario.

It does seem like it would tend to drive people away from dense urban cores which tends to be the most energy efficient configuration.

[jono]

You can't expect the energy efficiency comparison with and without WFH to be the same. If 10% of people move to less efficient places and 80% live more efficiently we net a gain. Arguing against WFH is like arguing that better fuel economy just means more driving so ee shouldn't bother. (It does, but we still net a gain.)

The fact that politicians will try to resist on behalf of those who benefit from inefficiency is a given. And not a good one.

[Benny Profane]

The American obsession with living in a 4000 SQ ft. house in non walkable neighborhoods and rural/semi rural places is far more harmful to the environment then living in multi use buildings in walkable neighborhoods with public transit. Add to that those new suburbanites driving massive gas guzzling trucks to just shop and then further out into the country to recreate, and you have a real problem.

[jono]

Lumber costs have taken care of that, Benny.

[altasnob]

What politicians are objecting to WFH? Seems like a management decision, not a political one. I agree WFH leads to efficiency, efficiency is good for environment. But currently, USA subsidizes less efficient rural living compared to more efficient urban living (I could start another 500 page thread on all the examples of this). USA is most sprawling, least efficient country on earth. Next on the list is Canada and Australia (think big houses spread out without transit). WFH would be a net boon for the environment if those WFH stayed in their dense, urban, efficient location. But that's not how it is going to work. We all hate each other so the goal is to have one's little castle in the mountains.

[summit]

Outdoor masking was always dumb except in close proximity and large groups

[Buster Highmen]

With regard to energy consumption for skiing, let's say some metroskisusal induhvidual who commutes about 300 miles per week has an approximately 180 mile round trip to his favorite and very hip ski locale.

If they go 20 times a year over a 4 month period, that's 16x300 + 20x180 == 4800 + 3600 == 8400 miles of driving.

Whereas the evil, subsidized ruralists may drive 100 miles per week for supplies, generally WFH or have a short commute and drive 20 miles round trip to their little ski area 20 times a year. Throw in another 2000 miles of driving just to bias things.

So that's 16x100 + 20x20 + 2000 == 1600 + 400 + 2000 == 4000.

Other things being equal (housing, schools, etc) I never understand the rural versus urban claims with regard to fossil fuel dependent Americans who ski or leave their urban perfection to recreate.

[jono]

With regard to energy consumption for skiing, let's say some metroskisusal induhvidual who commutes about 300 miles per week has an approximately 180 mile round trip to his favorite and very hip ski locale.

If they go 20 times a year over a 4 month period, that's 16x300 + 20x180 == 4800 + 3600 == 8400 miles of driving.

Whereas the evil, subsidized ruralists may drive 100 miles per week for supplies, generally WFH or have a short commute and drive 20 miles round trip to their little ski area 20 times a year. Throw in another 2000 miles of driving just to bias things.

So that's 16x100 + 20x20 + 2000 == 1600 + 400 + 2000 == 4000.

Other things being equal (housing, schools, etc) I never understand the rural versus urban claims with regard to fossil fuel dependent Americans who ski or leave their urban perfection to recreate.

Well put. It's all about magnitude. If history is any guide, Alta is going to double down on his certainty about the outcomes but the reality of that will depend on how many do how much. As with fuel economy, there are other factors limiting demand which keep the entire efficiency increase from being gobbled up by increased utility (which would be a net gain, anyway, we'd just be breaking even environmentally).

[altasnob]

Because how many people drive/use that road is also a major factor in the calculation. Hwy 410 to Crystal and Hwy 20 to Loup Loup both cost the same to build, per foot, and have the same net environmental affect. But a ton more metroskisusal use that road to Crystal than transplant metroskisusal use that road to Loup Loup (so the net utility for society, per foot, of 410 is much higher than 20). And if we have enough metroskisusal going to Crystal from the cities maybe someday we can have mass transit there like they do in Japan. I mean come on, is anyone really going to try to argue that per person, living in Hong Kong is not more efficient than anywhere in the US? We're all hypocrites, myself included. Just something to keep in mind.

[Buster Highmen]

In my own little selfish world what I spelled out are very real options for me. And la vie rural comes out much more energy efficient for us.

The point is that the urban efficiency is a myth for us.

[old_newguy]

Outdoor masking was always dumb except in close proximity and large groups

The policy was smart, because Americans are dumb and can’t do anything but black and white rules. So you get “wear a mask anytime you go out your house” instead of “wear a mask under XYZ scenario.”

[LongShortLong]

Driving consumes 5-10x the energy of a house. So, when WFH means a less efficient house with less driving, that tends to be a big win.

I think the typical model shows rural living less efficient b/c in addition to the less efficient residence, there's a commute to the city job. That commute is where most of the energy gets burned.

[old_newguy]

With regard to energy consumption for skiing, let's say some metroskisusal induhvidual who commutes about 300 miles per week has an approximately 180 mile round trip to his favorite and very hip ski locale.

If they go 20 times a year over a 4 month period, that's 16x300 + 20x180 == 4800 + 3600 == 8400 miles of driving.

Whereas the evil, subsidized ruralists may drive 100 miles per week for supplies, generally WFH or have a short commute and drive 20 miles round trip to their little ski area 20 times a year. Throw in another 2000 miles of driving just to bias things.

So that's 16x100 + 20x20 + 2000 == 1600 + 400 + 2000 == 4000.

Other things being equal (housing, schools, etc) I never understand the rural versus urban claims with regard to fossil fuel dependent Americans who ski or leave their urban perfection to recreate.

It’s not just commuting costs though. ots of energy going into building rural homes and infrastructure to support them on a per capital basis.

Interesting thought experiment though about rural WFH though. Hadn’t thought of it that way. I know my yearly mileage was much higher overall when I lived in E Oregon (not Central Oregon). Like 2-3x my current mileage.

[Buster Highmen]

It’s not just commuting costs though. ots of energy going into building rural homes and infrastructure to support them on a per capital basis.

Don't the house construction costs average out?
Granted, running infrastructure to support rural communities costs, but that also averages out.

Driving for both recreation and work accumulates costs.

Interesting thought experiment though about rural WFH though. Hadn’t thought of it that way. I know my yearly mileage was much higher overall when I lived in E Oregon (not Central Oregon). Like 2-3x my current mileage.

Our rural experience doesn't require commuting for work. But the real win is the ridiculously shorter distance to recreate.

I bring this up frequently: there's a really interesting book called "Scale" that does a great job of dispelling a lot of these kinds of myths around urban living. It's by Geoffrey West:

Geoffrey West is a theoretical physicist whose primary interests have been in fundamental questions in physics and biology. West is a Senior Fellow at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a distinguished professor at the Sante Fe Institute, where he served as the president from 2005-2009. In 2006 he was named to Time’s list of “The 100 Most Influential People in the World.”


https://www.amazon.com/Scale-Univers.../dp/1594205582

In particular, he demonstrates how urban growth increases costs for inhabitants, contrary to virtually everything one hears about that growth,

[Benny Profane]

Lumber costs have taken care of that, Benny.

How so? Seems to be plenty of people paying a shit ton of money for houses these days.

[gretch6364]

I don't want to go back and quote everyone, but some very good points made here. A couple things from my experience:

- Yes, WFH has been bad for Aspen/Jackson Hole. Which is why we gotta promote like 80% WFH and only on like Tuesday through Thursday. Mondays and Fridays...to the office with them all! ;-)

- Wife and I both work from home and walk the kids to and from school/day care. We drive less then 5,000 miles a year...combined...probably less. All I know, between our two cars, I got one oil change for each in the last 18 months. We drive the 15 miles to Aspen to ski, have some dinner, etc., some miles to camp/hike and to the grocery store. Now, we are very reliant on Amazon, which has bad environmental consequences, but the closest Target/Walmart is 45 minutes away and we are in one like once a year. I had to search for TP during the pandemic, which took me into Walmart last year.

- Places like Hong Kong are efficient because people live close to work and/or take public transport. In the US, tons of people are commuting long distances EVERYDAY between work and home. That is the problem that we could fix be keeping WFH 80% of the time for office workers.

- Yes there will be lots of downstream issues, restaurants closing, etc....but sacrifices have to made if people really want to make a difference in our energy consumption. And no, electric vehicles filled with toxic chemical strip mined and then bleeding into our water supply after disposal is not the best solution. Average US commuter drives 16 miles each way. 2,080 hours a year, 8 hour days, 260 working days is 8,320 miles a year...just commuting. Obviously, not accounting for PTO, etc.

- Altasnob, the article I quoted was partially about Denver leadership wanting people back downtown due to the economical issues for the Denver core. So...Denver's politicians.

[old_newguy]

Don't the house construction costs average out?
Granted, running infrastructure to support rural communities costs, but that also averages out.

Driving for both recreation and work accumulates costs.


Our rural experience doesn't require commuting for work. But the real win is the ridiculously shorter distance to recreate.

My understanding is that maintaining even low density suburban infrastructure (power, etc) is very rarely covered by the revenue (tax or otherwise) from those properties. Can’t imagine that maintaining a power line for a few dozen folks pencils out as lower per capita than denser urban living. Sort of mixing dollars and energy expenditures here, but don’t have any better numbers at hand.

My work commute was ~2 miles. Recreating and various trips was significantly more. Mostly because I did it a lot more when it was so close. And getting anywhere else was a significant drive that exceeds my weekly mileage by a lot.

[Benny Profane]

Driving consumes 5-10x the energy of a house.

Well, that's quite a generalization. Have some data to back that up? How large the house? How much electricity being used? Heated pool? Heated garage? Heated driveway? A house in a cold climate and/or hot climate?

Then, what kind of vehicle? Truck, or Tesla? How often and how many miles are the vehicles driven? For what purpose?

[Buster Highmen]

My understanding is that maintaining even low density suburban infrastructure (power, etc) is very rarely covered by the revenue (tax or otherwise) from those properties. Can’t imagine that maintaining a power line for a few dozen folks pencils out as lower per capita than denser urban living. Sort of mixing dollars and energy expenditures here, but don’t have any better numbers at hand.

I was trying to focus on energy expenditures in the name of environmental impact.

My work commute was ~2 miles. Recreating and various trips was significantly more. Mostly because I did it a lot more when it was so close. And getting anywhere else was a significant drive that exceeds my weekly mileage by a lot.

Weird. All the recreation we do there is within 20 miles, most within 6. Or just walk out of town.

In any case, it's not reasonable to paint with a broad brush or to invoke comparisons with Bangkok whose inhabitants have little functional similarity with your average tech bro or folks who commute 70 miles a day.