• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    82 years ago

    I’m not sure the people making the decisions about work from home have any concern for its effect on carbon emissions.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1042 years ago

    And time. Instead of commuting, I’ll mow my grass, water the plants, do some chores, etc.

    My wife commutes and can’t work remotely. I try to consider that and do more chores to bring balance.

    That extra 20-30 minutes in the morning and 40 minutes in the PM is priceless, actually.

    • guyrocket
      link
      fedilink
      272 years ago

      I agree.

      Time truly is our greatest resource as people and getting some back instead of driving is fantastic.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 years ago

      Yep. I have to go into the office 3 days a week. I get up for my first meeting, do some light work, then shower and get ready during my working hours, and leave on the bus. I’ll get there around 11-11:30 usually. Then I’ll leave to be home around 5. I’m not wasting my time on this bullshit. Working from home is way more relaxing and efficient.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      162 years ago

      Took me an hour to get to work, so now I get an extra hour and a half in bed as I get up at 9:30 for my 9am start.

          • lad
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            So what they are saying is basically large companies have a ridiculous margin and can raise wages (but will not, unless unemployment rate is too low because efficiency) and small companies will go broke or loose all of their workers if bigger ones raise.

            That almost sounds like a systemic problem, ain’t it?

          • AlexisFR
            link
            fedilink
            32 years ago

            Well if you think like this, it’s no wonder they are ending WFH.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    52 years ago

    Interesting. When the impact of individuals on the environment is discussed, a huge number of users here can’t stress enough how the effort of the people doesn’t matter and is irrelevant.

    Stop eating meat and dairy, not buying plastic wrapped stuff, using public transport,… That’s all of no use and no one should even dare to mention it since this is all just propaganda by big corporations.

    Unless it’s about home office. Suddenly there is great agreement that we have to do home office to save the climate! It almost seems like for a lot of people it’s not so much about protecting the climate, but about not taking up responsibility when it’s uncomfortable.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      Stop eating meat and dairy,

      SURE!!! Because aside from the fact of all the carbon-neutral farms out there at this point, which aside from them going that way for tax credits is irrelevant, that actually puts back into the soil and regenerates our literally dead soil. Pretty different story from all the mono-cropping destruction that’s happening otherwise.

      But those evil cow farts right??? When cows aren’t fed trash corn and grain and actually graze on grass like they’re supposed to, the gas isn’t a problem, not that it is anyways. But then you’d lose the talking point for plant based eating, wouldn’t ya? Most emmisions are from transportation, which is happening either way. Nice try.

  • YⓄ乙
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    right but the issue is not environment pollution , its the real estate. They all are empty so fuck the environment and bring yo 9-5 ass to office.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      112 years ago

      i also think theres an inherent bias that ‘leaders’ tend to be more extroverted and see more value in people ‘being together’, and to an extent, at least in my observed experience, are unwilling to acknowledge the fact its not the same for everyone

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        It is downright malicious in many cases, though. A lot of times, business owners will be renting the property their office is based out of, and that property ends up being owned by a family member or friend (or they themselves) who then get to bill the company for quite a sum without that being considered payroll. If they lose the office, they lose money, and that’s all they care about.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        I’m deeply introverted but prefer in-office. I’m in a leadership position and gently encourage staff to work in office too when possible. It’s not for socializing and awful pizza parties, and you don’t have to tell me about your weekend hobbies if you don’t want to.

        For me it’s mainly because my work requires technical skills, problem solving, and creativity, which means it’s very helpful for me to know my staff really well in order to properly review their work. If I see something that looks odd it’s really helpful to know ‘Mary did this and that’s her strength so I’m probably wrong’ or ‘Steve did this and he sucks in this area so it probably is wrong’ etc. WFH removes all that and everyone is just a disembodied talking head, or worse, emails and texts only, so I have no idea who I’m talking to.

        I truly get the allure and I still wfh when appropriate but again I encourage in office as much as possible.

      • Rentlar
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        ‘Leaders’ also tend to own an outsize amount of real estate as well.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    33
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I bike to work and turn off my AC/heat and power strips at home before I ride off. I wish everyone could experience how easy this is, I fucking hate driving through traffic.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      182 years ago

      I would ride to work but there’s so many reasons not to. I’ve tried before, and almost died several times because of asshole drivers and half asleep morons still putting on makeup or drinking coffee or whatever. The bike lanes are a joke and people treat them like passing lanes to get one car length ahead in stop-go traffic. I’ve ridden with pants on once and got a giant oil stain on my leg from the bike chain. Even if none of that happens, it’s extremely hot and humid where i live almost year round, and I wear business casual so I’m drenched in sweat before too long. I wish I could make it work but…no…and of course there’s no reliable public transportation.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I’ve tried before, and almost died several times because of asshole drivers and half asleep morons still putting on makeup or drinking coffee or whatever. The bike lanes are a joke and people treat them like passing lanes to get one car length ahead in stop-go traffic.

        Yeah man, I completely understand. I’m very very lucky to live in a cooler climate, only a few miles from my work, with somewhat decent bike lanes (although a joke compared to anywhere in Europe), and I don’t sweat too bad lol.

        I try to convince a lot of my friends to give bicycling a try but I totally understand if they’re afraid of traffic. It’s fucked up that we’re forced to ride completely unseparated from cars and giant fucking trucks swinging all over the road.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          52 years ago

          Nope not even close. I hear some buildings have gyms downstairs so I suppose I could keep work clothes in the locker and ride to and from in street clothes. I’m in the job market so I’ll look into it.

    • @[email protected]
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      192 years ago

      I wish I could do that again like I did in college.

      But we just had 2 months straight with temperatures over 100 degrees where I’m at, and affordable housing is 30 miles from where people work. So going to work would take forever, be miserable, and require a shower upon arrival.

      I just got offered an awesome new job that pays half again more than I make now, but it’s further into the city, and a 300sft studio apartment within 15 miles of my new job is $2,500/month.

      The cheapest home in the City is 1.8 million dollars, and the median price is 2.6 million.

      Paying the car note, gas, and rent on 1200sft where I’m at saves me a thousand dollars a month versus moving closer, AND the new job actually pays a fuel stipend because literally nobody at the company lives within a half-hour drive of the office, so it’s even better to live where it’s cheaper.

      We’d move the office, but we’re municipal employees and It’s hard to justify moving City Hall out of the city

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    42 years ago

    I am like infinitive times more productive when working from home. I am voluntarely coming to office usually 1 day per week and oh boy I don’t work in office. Vaping, walking around, chatting, meetings, vaping, snacks, walk outside.

    I think I will become pro-office at some point lol. 😅

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      Yep, and if you have management that still values presenteeism over actual work (because it massages their ego), the 20%-40% reduction in productivity while AT work will go unnoticed, most likely.

  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
    link
    fedilink
    832 years ago

    One criticism of WFH is that you’ll have increased energy bills since you’re home all day. Aside from the obvious reasons that’s wrong, this provides hard data showing that WFH is better for the environment in addition to being better for literally everyone except commercial real estate investors.

    • edric
      link
      fedilink
      English
      202 years ago

      Yeah. Having a laptop and extra monitor on all day at home probably uses less electricity than the fridge.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
        link
        fedilink
        82 years ago

        Ostensibly you could turn down your thermostat during the day to save money, but almost no one does this

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          This depends greatly on the home and how the home is used for how effective changing the thermostat during the day actually is. You have to keep it mildly in a comfortable temperature range to prevent damage to the home, plus any people or animals at home during the day will reduce the savings available by adjusting the thermostat. There’s also the problem of the fact that if you let the home get too far outside of the desired range the HVAC then has to “catch up” for when you get home which may be enough to not only negate but use more energy and if it just stayed at one set temperature.

          All of the increased energy use at home is nothing compared to the energy use of a personal car. My family was able to go down to a single vehicle thanks to hybrid work. Literally an entire car off the road. We live in a rural area where traveling between towns is a requirement and driving your own car is the only way to reliably get between towns, so being a single car family and not missing having a second car is a rare luxury where we live

    • Hot Saucerman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      55
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I would assume it takes far more energy on heating/cooling/ventilation systems for large buildings in general than it does for a series of small buildings that have classic ventilation systems called “windows that open to let in fresh air.” Something that is pretty rare in office buildings.

      EDIT: Furthermore, large buildings usually have automated systems that keep it roughly the same temperature throughout the whole building while individuals in their own homes might try to keep heating/cooling bills low by choosing to only heat/cool specific rooms that they’re actually physically using. I know I certainly do this at home, no sense in doing temp control in a room no one is occupying (other than making sure it’s above freezing for pipes, etc.).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        222 years ago

        It really depends. For larger systems you can start taking advantage of economy of scale and a LOT of homes have those shit-tacular window units. Also, during the winter you can take advantage of body heat and residual heat a lot more to not have to run the heat as much as someone in a room with poorly insulated windows would.

        And that ignores offices co-located with servers where you likely already have a pretty strong HVAC system that needs to run anyway.

        And then there is just the personal impact. Employees tend to not (knowingly) pay the heating/cooling bill in an office building. They do at home.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          182 years ago

          I once worked in a high-rise office that would get uncomfortably cold (for me) in winter. I thought they were just being stingy with the heating, until I went into the office on a Saturday and found it was pleasantly warm. Turns out all the computers were keeping the office nice and toasty, and they were actively cooling the place during the winter to keep things at a “business temperature.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    542 years ago

    As a full time remote worker, I can confirm, I’m driving so much less. My commute prior to the pandemic was 18 minutes (12.7 miles one way), so 25 miles round trip with 36 minutes spent driving each work day. My commute was short compared to a lot of other people I worked with who’d drive 45 minutes one way, some 1 hour one way! That’s a lot of driving that can be cut out if the role allows for remote work.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      292 years ago

      I also eat at home a lot more which has a far lower ecological cost than going out to eat

      • Hot Saucerman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        152 years ago

        And healthier, since restaurants tend to go all out on sugar, fat, and salt to make their meals tasty.

        • metaStatic
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          Food isn’t medicine, it’s allowed to be healthy and tasty

          • Hot Saucerman
            link
            fedilink
            English
            9
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            For sure, it’s just that restaurants more often than not take shortcuts that aren’t healthy to achieve the tasty. I fully agree that you can make healthier and still very tasty food at home, they’re not mutually exclusive.

      • ryan213
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 years ago

        Yeah, we make large portions when we cook so I can freeze the leftovers for lunch.

    • ryan213
      link
      fedilink
      English
      552 years ago

      I find I’m less angry too. A lot of bad drivers out there. Lol

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        I’m lucky enough to have multiple routes to my office.

        During the times that taking the back roads is dramatically slower, I’ll go on the interstate. Holy hell my stress and anger levels rocket when doing that.

      • steebo_jack
        link
        fedilink
        112 years ago

        Ah yah…lots of stupid drivers here just piss me off…lots of traffic compared to last year too…

      • The Pantser
        link
        fedilink
        142 years ago

        I have a theory about the increase of bad drivers that seems to have happened after the pandemic. So most of the higher paid desk jobs where usually people are more intelligent mostly went to WFH. So there are less intelligent people on the road than there used to be. So now it’s all idiots in cars taking free reign of the roads. Less traffic causes the idiots to be able to more freely speed and run reds. I know since working from home I drive about 90% less and when I do I am scared for my life.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          182 years ago

          As someone who works a desk job, no, there are lots of idiots in those jobs, and lots of smart people digging ditches.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 years ago

        Just being stuck in traffic when you could be getting shit done is what gets me. Time/money/carbon emissions… just wasteful in every way

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I changed mine before a ~1500 mile road trip summer of 2022. Flipped to the percentage (Honda) the other day just out of curiosity and it’s still at 60%, lol. I put so few miles on that thing it’s crazy. I sometimes go a few miles to lunch. Outside that we use it for hardware store runs here and there. I guess I did drive it to a wedding a couple weeks back but that was because I knew we would be parking in a farm field and it’s my only 4 wheel drive vehicle. Probably should change the oil before winter just for good measure.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        It’s a good idea to change your oil every 12 months even if you don’t reach the mileage for the maintenance interval. The heat cycles from the engine creates condensation in the engine and the water reacts with the petroleum in the oil and produces some not nice stuff. I haven’t been reaching my interval but my car will still beep at me 30 days before the last oil monitor reset.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    622 years ago

    WFH allowance should be mandated – anyone that wants it for a job where it’s possible must be allowed it. it’s such a dramatic quality of life difference.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      252 years ago

      I’m privileged to have a boss not caring where we work from, but i prefer to come into the office once in a while because of my social needs. It’s depressing to stay home day after day, but it’s more productive.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        212 years ago

        That’s great when it’s your choice. The issue is when bosses don’t give people the choice.

      • haruki
        link
        fedilink
        16
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        My boss allows people to WFH officially, but also establishes several small office spaces so people can come to hang out if they feel lonely, or want to get to know their colleagues more. I think this is the best of both world.

        • Echo Dot
          link
          fedilink
          72 years ago

          They don’t lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.

          The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds. The company has a building that they have to pay upkeep on, while also having the IT costs of managing a off-site VPN.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            42 years ago

            As someone who works at a company that’s permanently hybrid I have to disagree. We now literally have more employees at our corporate office than we have desks, and because all of our employees are 60-90% remote we can pull talent from a larger distance while still being able to have in-person meetings and in-person power sessions for large projects. But by continuing to have an office we have a central location for shipping and receiving, a secure and static space for meeting, working on projects and training plus core infrastructure and roles that don’t work well remotely can still be on premises. Its literally the best of both worlds.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            Just to be clear, I’m not arguing against WFH, just providing possible reasons big companies are against it.

            They don’t lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.

            That only applies to companies that rent. If they own the building, then an empty office becomes a waste

            The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds.

            I disagree on that one. Not everyone wants to WFH or do it full time. Also if they meet with outside persons regularly, like customers and want to do it in person, having an office is useful. Obviously this does not apply to all companies, but it’s wrong to say that the hybrid system is the worst.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        62 years ago

        Idk how legit it is, but I have read that companies got deals on taxes and such for building their office in the specific city/state and that’s with the expectation that the workers will either live in the city or will be from the city, in turn creating tax income from those workers buying things in the city. Basically because wfh employees also move to cheaper cities the companies are losing their benefits

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2182 years ago

    Corporations should be held responsible for the emissions caused by their employee’s commuting.

    This would really change the discussion about return to office.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      262 years ago

      Yes, but we need to see everyone in person!!!11111 There are intangible benefits and impromptu synergies, etc… /s

    • ntzm [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      202 years ago

      In Nottingham, UK they made it so companies have to pay for every parking space per year over a certain amount, and that money gets invested in public transport. Over time congestion has grown much slower in Nottingham than similar cities, I’m amazed that more cities don’t do the same.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      Well, for positions that could be moved to WFH perhaps. To others that would be unfair because companies would descriminate by distance to the office.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        So you also make sure location discrimination is illegal as well. There can be multiple parts to the legislation.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          Before we do anything else we should be working to end lobbying and put every single lobbyist leech on society out of a job. Otherwise this is all pipe dreams. They’ll just lobby it away.

          • em2
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            I still don’t understand how bribery lobbying is legal.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        I’ve seen that already, at least pre-Covid and in the U.S. Even though I’m pretty sure that asking that during an interview is illegal, I’ve been on post-interview sessions where someone inevitably says “yeah, but this candidate lives nearly an hour away, while this other candidate lives 15 minutes away…” so they found out somehow.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      92
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Lol they spent decades doing the opposite, generating the vast majority of emissions with big manufacturing and big livestock, and then successfully shifting blame on poor peasants claiming the planet is heating because they’re not sorting their recycling well enough.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          How about buying electric instead of combustion while trying to not buy a new car unless it’s really necessary? That should reduce emissions, shouldn’t it?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Simpler perhaps, but not really better. High gas prices hurt the poor disproportionately because it’s a larger part of their income, they don’t have as much control over WFH policies or their locations for reducing commutes, and they can’t typically afford to upgrade to fuel efficient vehicles. Plus since almost everything is transported by truck, high gas prices make the cost of everything else go up too.

        I think part of the labor shortage is from people who did the math and quit after realising that they weren’t actually earning anything after subtracting transportation costs.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          If we’re talking about some sort of tax on employers based on the commute of their employees, it’s going to disproportionately affect the poor anyway. If you tax employers though you’re incentivizing further control of their employees lives.

          Yes, higher gas prices would increase the cost of shipping and therefore most products, but there’s no world in which we hold corporations accountable for their externalities and consumer goods remain as cheap as they are.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      Modern accounting techniques are amazing and super effective, barely unchanged since their codification in the 1490s by an Italian scholar named Luca Pacioli. The biggest weakness of accounting though is its inability to capture externalities. How does one company record the cost of their employees commute? How do you even begin to calculate that? How do you measure the cost of extra leukemia cases in a town ten years after a train derails nearby? How do you record that in your books? How do you calculate and record the distress these huge noisy shipping vessels cause whales? It’s just so subjective and impractical.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        In the city of Seattle, for example, every year, companies over a certain number of employees are required to participate in an annual transportation survey. The employees are surveyed. The questions ask how far the employee commutes to work, how long it takes, and by what method (private vehicle, car pool, public transportation), how many days a year they work from home, or take off, etc. The effort is to assess the impact on environment, parking infrastructure, public transportation, roads, etc.

        Obviously, there isn’t a 100% response rate so the data is extrapolated from the responses to the total number of employees employeed at that site (probably why they only poll companies of a minimum size and larger).

        If they wanted to implement something like this in seattle, then the next step would be to take the data they already have and start sending those companies a new bill for a new annual tax based on the assessment.

        Lots of taxes work off of an estimated assessment rather than having to account for every nut snd bolt of the thing (property taxes, for example).

        So how do you do it? That’s how you do it. This isn’t rocket science, and you don’t need to invent new accounting methods or worry about the accounting-sky falling to accomplish it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            32 years ago

            The point of my earlier comment was that the inability to account down to the last carbon atom isn’t a valid reason not to start with more generalized high-level estimates and work just from those until/if a better way of doing it is either becomes available or becomes a necessity.

            It’s like arguing that we might as well not accept the existence of circles because we can’t calculate to the final digit of pi…when really, for most things, we don’t need that level of precision to still do a good job discussing roundness.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              12 years ago

              Pi can be rounded. It’s infamously difficult to compute externalities in any meaningful sense. Even more difficult to implement a fair and actionable policy for it. You can google “accounting for externalities” and read a bunch f articles and academic papers on the subject, which has been debated for decades.

              Beyond fines for dumping chemicals in rivers, and carbon taxes, etc, stronger EPA, etc, I don’t really have any good ideas for codifying a real actual plan into law. Probably easier to raise corporate tax rates up a few points from 21% to whatever and use it to fund green energy and cleanup projects etc, rather than change accounting methods to try and capture the costs that way.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        Modern accounting techniques are amazing and super effective,

        Hmm

        The biggest weakness of accounting though is its inability to capture externalities

        Oh so you mean it’s actually dog shit then, if you can’t properly look at external risks outside the clearly defined formulas and can game said fomulas to cook books to one’s liking.

        How does one company record the cost of their employees commute? How do you even begin to calculate that? How do you measure the cost of extra leukemia cases in a town ten years after a train derails nearby? How do you record that in your books? How do you calculate and record the distress these huge noisy shipping vessels cause whales? It’s just so subjective and impractical.

        You act like these are difficult tasks in the modern era. Commute is pretty simple, what type of vehicle, what are its maintenance costs at certain mileages, what are the crash statistics, etc. Once you have a general fomula you can add an increased payout to cover ireegular externalities to properly hedge against the edge cases. Same shit for the others. It’s not subjective and impractical, it’s just not the going to be perfectly effiecnt as you need to create a bigger financial bubble to account for edge cases. The problem is hyper fixation on extracting the most captial possible from a business. Stop trying to be the most clean cut business and focus on aiding your communities, working to better infrastructure and stop interference with local governments for tax benefits. Then progressive changes can be beneficial to both and reduce external unmitigated risks as we have a more nuanced model to work with.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          That rant is unhinged, you’re not playing with a full deck. Not gonna engage with you if you can’t have a reasonable conversation in good faith.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            Lol, call out your bullshit and you have nothing but a reductionist argument, but sure bud I’m the one not playing with a full deck. Go lick some more boots if you can’t engage in constructive conversation.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              12 years ago

              Come back when you can codify your point into something that can actually be recorded on a balance sheet and P&L. Until then it’s not even wrong, it’s just…word salad…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      362 years ago

      Companies should be on the hook for all negative externalities. Make them internalities and watch how quick things change

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    192 years ago

    There are so many CEOs putting their own private portfolio over the companies they supposedly run having a high staff attrition, and yet “they command such big salaries because they take on so much risk”.

    • Chris
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      I have heard this but do we have any evidence?

      It makes sense, but gotta be able to prove it.

  • Montagge
    link
    fedilink
    152 years ago

    In the two weeks since my work mandated three days in the office I’ve spent $150 on gas. Awesome.
    Granted part of that reason is the car broke down and I had to drive the truck.

  • ShadowRam
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    The main causes of remote workers’ reduced emissions were less office energy use, as well as fewer emissions from a daily commute.

    I mean yeah, that makes sense,

    But I wonder what the numbers are when it comes to everyone keeping their homes heated/cooled all day compared to communal heating/cooling of a building.

    People working at home will increase their personal emissions to keep their home office heated/cooled, and I suspect you get more bang for your energy buck if they are all in one spot instead of spread out into multiple buildings.

    So sure… less office energy use, but increased home energy use…

    I wonder how the study calculated that or even bothered…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      I wonder what the numbers are when it comes to everyone keeping their homes heated/cooled all day compared to communal heating/cooling of a building.

      District heating is popular in parts of the world. We could lower emissions caused by commuting and lower emissions due to shitty tiny furnaces.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        District heating (and cooling) would also alleviate the problem of people continuing to run ancient furnaces and air conditioners that are simply too old and worn down to be effective

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      In the US, people typically drive cars to work. These cars are 3000-6000 pounds that move 20-30 miles by burning oiil at 25% efficiency while also polluting the air with brake and tire dust.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      I don’t know about your home and office, but every office I worked in had atrocious heating and cooling. People wear hoodies inside all summer because the AC is set too low.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Or the lady who keeps bringing in a space heater and plugging it into their computer power strip despite being told repeatedly not to do that

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            It’s me. I’m the lady with the space heater (and the blanket, and the hoodie). I have garbage circulation, so I have to warm up my frozen fingers and toes a few times a day or I can’t get anything done. If there were any other outlets, I’d use those, but there aren’t because my building is old as balls.

            • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
              link
              fedilink
              12 years ago

              I pray that you may find a job that lets you work from the climate that suits you best. Probably tropical.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                22 years ago

                No joke, I was born on a Pacific island, and I swear that set me up for life to crave 85 and humid all year round. Unfortunately, I live in CO, and I love this dumb state, so here we are. With space heaters and office blankets.

      • ShadowRam
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        definitely a perk working from home, you decide temperature/sound/etc.

        But I’m talking from an overall society energy use perspective.

        I’m curious if the energy efficiency of having people in one building compares to the energy efficiency of them spread out.

        It will greatly vary, as some are already in apartment buildings sharing that efficiency, some are in better eff rated homes, some are in worse eff rated homes.

        Not sure this study can accurately claim 54% … even if they said ±10%, it’s still probably way out to lunch.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          52 years ago

          Don’t forget about all the useless TVs and monitors running in offices all the time.

          And heating/cooling/lighting all the empty rooms.

          Plus staff for cleaning and security.

          You’re not wrong that it’d be interesting to see some data, but my intuition is offices are extremely wasteful in a lot of ways. I could be wrong though!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          I remember reading about a study pre-pandemic that found remote work was greatly better from an emissions standpoint than in-office work and it mostly came down to the massive amounts of resources spent commuting, and if I remember correctly it even found the emissions cost of commuting by public transit to be significant enough to see improvement by remote work