3 ms·
Do they? I feel like remote-first companies seem to enjoy having an excuse to travel to exciting destinations as a recruitment/retention perk. “We’re meeting in
by ytdytvhxgydvhh 4y ago
Do they? I feel like remote-first companies seem to enjoy having an excuse to travel to exciting destinations as a recruitment/retention perk. “We’re meeting in Kansas City because that minimizes emissions” likely doesn’t spark joy in the same way that “we’re meeting in the Bahamas because we’re cool and fun!” would.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoI refuse to fly to corporate meetings due to climate impact, and I have a few colleagues that do the same, so I don’t think this is universally true. I would respect a company that didn’t.
- chroma 4y agoDepending on how you measure it, aircraft account for 1.9-3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions.[1] The biggest source is electricity and heating, followed by ground transportation.[2] Compared to almost all other sources, air travel is a rounding error. 1. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation 2. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
- micromacrofoot 4y agoI also produce more electricity than I use with solar panels (including heat) and drive an ev less than 2500 miles a year… so I’m an extreme case. This isn’t realistic for everyone because of how the world is built, but the hardest part was saving for the upfront investment (I’ll start generating profit from solar once I’m 7 years in, probably less now because I haven’t recalculated faster than expected inflation). While not everyone can manage this due to upfront costs, a lot more people could do this, but simply don’t.