With the recent financial turmoil, many companies and industries are finding themselves in deteriorating financial straits. Yesterday the CEOs of the 'Big Three' auto makers testified before Congress on why they should be the latest recipients of taxpayer funds, specifically a $25 billion injection from the government to keep their businesses afloat. At the same time, renewable energy infrastructure buildout is facing similar problems. 66 out of 262 approved wind farms have either been outright canceled or postponed. Some tough choices will likely have to be made. It has been our historical political trajectory to put out immediate fires and neglect smoke on the horizon. But at what point, if ever, is there an 'a-ha' (or 'uh-oh') moment, when we collectively realize we don't have the resources to continue ALL businesses. Some entire industries can, should and will fail.


Below the thread are some brief comments, and an open thread on the automobile industry bailout situation.

"Hummer?"	"or Light and Heat?"

This is a guest post by Aaron Newton, who is working with coauthor Sharon Astyk on the forthcoming book, A Nation of Farmers. Aaron contributes at Groovy Green; he also blogs at Powering Down. Aaron is a land planner and garden farmer in suburban North Carolina, seeking ways to transform the current course of human land use development in an effort to prepare for the effects of global oil production peak and its outcome on automotive suburban America.

The notion of our standard work week here in America has remained largely the same since 1938. That was the year the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, standardizing the eight hour work day and the 40 hour work week. Each Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday workers all over the country wake up, get dressed, eat breakfast and go to work. But the notion that the majority of the workforce should keep these hours is based on nothing more than an idea put forth but the Federal government almost 70 years ago. To be sure it was an improvement in the lives of many Americans who were at the time forced to work 10+ hours a day, sometimes 6 days of the week. So a 40 hour work week was seen as an upgrade in the lives of many of U.S. citizens. 8 is a nice round number; one third of each 24 hour day. In theory it leaves 8 hours for sleep and 8 hours for other activities like eating, bathing, raising children and enjoying life. But the notion that we should work for 5 of these days in a row before taking 2 for ourselves is, as best I can tell, rather arbitrary.

The idea of a shorter work week is not a new one to anyone old enough to have lived through the energy shocks of the 1970's. It should be fairly obvious to anyone interested in conserving oil that reducing the number of daily commutes per week would reduce the overall demand for oil. There are about 133 million workers in America. Around 80% of them get to work by driving alone in a car. The average commute covers about 16 miles each way.

So let's stop and do some math...and I'll try to argue for 16 reasons why a four day work week is a good idea.

This article was originally written for The Hybrid Debate.

The hybrid car may be a milestone in the history of personal transportation, but it still burns petrol and releases CO2. In this sense, it’s no different from the Model-T Ford of 1908. True, the technology provides significant efficiency benefits. But it won’t be revolutionary until its next incarnation, the "plug-in hybrid electric vehicle" (PHEV), goes mainstream.

In a PHEV, the internal combustion engine (ICE) is further reduced in size; the electric motor and battery pack are scaled up; and a cable is provided, to connect the car to the national grid via wall sockets. With heavy-duty electrical components taking more of the strain, the ICE runs for shorter periods of time, thus improving the car’s efficiency.