3 ms·
Would it? Remote work might incentive overall less density, which, on the whole, leads to a bigger carbon footprint per capita.
by purple_ferret 5y ago
Would it? Remote work might incentive overall less density, which, on the whole, leads to a bigger carbon footprint per capita.
- eru 5y agoDepends on where people want to live and work. But a big part of why lower density is bad is because it leads to lots of commuting.
- alistairSH 5y agoCommuting is no doubt a large contributor to carbon emissions. But, suburban and rural living lead to car-centric lifestyles in general. Driving to school, to the grocer, to entertainment and dining, etc. Plus all the infrastructure to support that - more roads, giant parking lots, etc.
- eru 5y agoYes, perhaps. So a carbon tax is still a good idea. (And so is removing things like minimum parking requirements.)
- CydeWeys 5y agoI live in NYC and don't own a car. All my errands are done on foot and by bike, and I'm using relatively little power because I live in a big apartment building. If I lived in the suburbs and had to use a car for most trips, then my carbon footprint would be substantially higher, even without having to commute. This map gets to the heart of the issue: https://twitter.com/TheJakeSchmidt/status/1424782722409631746?s=19 https://twitter.com/TheJakeSchmidt/status/142478272240963174...
- eru 5y agoYes. Though I would hope that some people would use remote as an opportunity to work from other cities, and not just from the suburbs. (I work from Singapore for a London based company, for example.)