The environmental argument is sometimes used, but often (and often correctly) seen as someone who prefers remote work dishonestly slapping an environmental argu

The environmental argument is sometimes used, but often (and often correctly) seen as someone who prefers remote work dishonestly slapping an environmental argument on it (dishonest, because the actual primary reason they're pushing for it doesn't match the stated primary reason). It isn't as clear-cut as you'd expect either - one argument I've heard is that in areas where air conditioning is a large contributor to energy use and homes are poorly insulated, someone staying home and cooling their home with an inefficient, small air conditioner may be worse than having that person commute to an office instead. This argument is often generalized and sometimes dishonestly used by people who prefer office work to argue that teleworking is actually bad for the environment. I found a meta-study https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8a84/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8a84/... that claims vehicle miles traveled increase (because people move further away) while the studies generally claimed a reduction in overall energy consumption. Several studies claim grossly exaggerated environmental impacts for streaming/data transfers. I don't remember seeing it misused to dismiss the environmental argument for teleworking, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it. The worst offender here is the Shift Project, which overstated the results of their already flawed study by another factor of 8 in an interview, and then used that huge mistake to argue that their other mistakes aren't that relevant because they're small (compared to the initial mistake, not compared to their claimed impact). https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/shift-project-really-overestimate-carbon-footprint-video-analysis/ https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/shift-project-really-...