6 ms·

More remote work helps the planet too you know since it reduces ones carbon footprint and more time for people to sleep improves mental health too

doktorhladnjak 3y ago
Unfortunately, it does not seem to. Others have mentioned how heating and cooling a private residence is more energy intensive per person, but even vehicle miles traveled aren’t reduced. It turns out people just drive to more places that aren’t work and move to more auto dependent communities where they overall drive more. During the beginning of COVID, there was a big drop in carbon as more worked from home but it was mostly because people weren’t going anywhere.
Lacerda69 3y ago
While I agree I dont think tech execs give a damn about carbon footprint or your mental health.
- benjaminwootton 3y ago
  A lot of employees not wanting to return to the office have suddenly become more environmentally aware too!
basisword 3y ago
>> it reduces ones carbon footprint Is this proven (it probably can't be proven given the huge variety of commutes, office spaces, heating sources etc.)? It would be my default assumption but I feel like heating one office with 100 people in it is much more efficient than heating 100 homes in winter. And if people are in a location where publish transport is the norm then it might be better in terms of carbon impact to be in office.
- shakow 3y ago
  But people will be heating their home in winter in any case, whether they're remote or on-site.
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    People also generate heat. So in the cold months, it might be an even bigger win by relieving their home heating system of some work. I guess the flip side is when the house needs to be cooled.
  - cowsandmilk 3y ago
    When I’m on-site, my house is set to a significantly lower temperature during the day. Scheduled thermostats have been around long enough that I assume that’s the norm.
    - shakow 3y ago
      But then you need a surge in power to put it back from lo_temp to hi_temp when you get back home, I honestly don't know if it costs more or less than just maintaining it at hi_temp, and what are the orders of magnitude involved.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        The first order approximation is that the heat loss between the inside and outside is linear with the temperature difference (delta-T) between them. So, if the delta-T is 10°C when occupied and allowed to rise to 14°C when unoccupied for 8 hours, there is a small savings. When the heating system is then commanded to recover the temperature, it will generally do a longer, single run (which for fossil fuel equipment is more efficient than a series of small runs, but for heat pumps is not significantly different [unless it engages emergency backup, which is far worse]) Overall, it's a small win, partially offset in the heating season by the heat gain from human occupancy and activity. It's almost surely not enough of a win to sum up to pay for the conditioning of an entire office building that would otherwise not be heated beyond "don't freeze the plumbing".
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Presumably a 15 degree F or whatever lower temp (and reduced use of electricity for other purposes) during the day does reduce costs somewhat. However, for most people, commuting is almost certainly a significantly larger expense.
- helen___keller 3y ago
  In a place like the Bay Area where the weather is pleasant and the commutes are primarily by privately owned vehicles I think it should be the case. If you live in NYC, Boston, or Chicago, and used to take the train, maybe it’s different However I think the biggest environmental issue with remote work is encouraging nationwide suburban and exurban sprawl. Still, that can only be the nations failure for not incentivizing construction of desirable urban properties so Americans feel like they need a big house and tons of land to escape their tiny urban apartment
  - ghaff 3y ago
    There's nothing inherent about dense cities that make them more desirable to live in especially absent convenience to offices--no matter how carefully planned. There are tradeoffs. I could absolutely live in a pretty nice city and choose not to do so.
bippihippi1 3y ago
100 businesses are responsible for 70% of fossil fuel use. doing what you can is great, but it won't make a difference unless businesses change as well.
- barry-cotter 3y ago
  Those businesses are big because they’re the abstraction layer over the fact that what they produce is something a lot of people want. If they were destroyed overnight an awful lot of people would die and then their economic function would be reconstituted, probably more carbon intensive because it’s more robust to supply chain disruption.
  - bippihippi1 3y ago
    a lot of people would be inconvenienced. if they are unable to farm and support themselves in case of an emergency it's due to environmental collapse. they should move somewhere less damaged. the alternative is to keep spreading the damage
- lifeisstillgood 3y ago
  I have heard that stat before and it turns out those business are basically shipping and freight companies, car manufacturers etc. if you somehow told the companies to stop burning oil and carbon most world trade would stop, and they would have to take peoples cars a away Yes we could reduce the impact (burn cleaner diesel on ships, avoid contrails) but this is not 100 evil companies that need to be taught a lesson - this is all of us, billions of humans and our default lifestyle
  - magnuspaaske 3y ago
    The problem with that framing is that those big companies aren't just responding to consumer demand but have also actively lobbied for policies that create said demand. For instance shipping companies pay a much lower corporate tax rate than other companies and car companies have lobbied against everything from efficiency and clear air regulation to creating alternatives to a car-first transportation system. Oil companies are in a league of themselves and we're only starting to see shenanigans they've done to stall dealing with climate change.
55555 3y ago
For a (weak) counterpoint, there's an interesting article in Bloomberg today about how day-time recreational drug habits are increasing due to remote work. https://archive.is/IoY1k https://archive.is/IoY1k >> Drug recovery firm Sierra Tucson concluded from a November 2021 survey that about 20% of US workers admitted to using recreational drugs while working remotely, and also to being under the influence during virtual meetings. So it's not all rainbows and daisies.
- fathyb 3y ago
  In every office I worked at, more than 20% were drunk at 2 PM. I would say it was more like 35%. I don't like being around people on hard drugs, especially at work, so not having to deal with that is a huge plus!
  - kagakuninja 3y ago
    I've worked at companies with beer taps in the lunch room.
- allarm 3y ago
  I’ve seen people using recreational drugs while working in the office, so…
  - capableweb 3y ago
    I once bought a hotdog from a street vendor in Copenhagen that was seriously high on some downers in 2:00 in the morning, so clearly hotdog vendors are more likely to do drugs.
  - koheripbal 3y ago
    That, but now much more
35936207 3y ago
[dead]

doktorhladnjak 3y ago

Unfortunately, it does not seem to. Others have mentioned how heating and cooling a private residence is more energy intensive per person, but even vehicle miles traveled aren’t reduced. It turns out people just drive to more places that aren’t work and move to more auto dependent communities where they overall drive more. During the beginning of COVID, there was a big drop in carbon as more worked from home but it was mostly because people weren’t going anywhere.

Lacerda69 3y ago

While I agree I dont think tech execs give a damn about carbon footprint or your mental health.

benjaminwootton 3y ago
A lot of employees not wanting to return to the office have suddenly become more environmentally aware too!

basisword 3y ago

>> it reduces ones carbon footprint Is this proven (it probably can't be proven given the huge variety of commutes, office spaces, heating sources etc.)? It would be my default assumption but I feel like heating one office with 100 people in it is much more efficient than heating 100 homes in winter. And if people are in a location where publish transport is the norm then it might be better in terms of carbon impact to be in office.

shakow 3y ago
But people will be heating their home in winter in any case, whether they're remote or on-site.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  People also generate heat. So in the cold months, it might be an even bigger win by relieving their home heating system of some work. I guess the flip side is when the house needs to be cooled.
- cowsandmilk 3y ago
  When I’m on-site, my house is set to a significantly lower temperature during the day. Scheduled thermostats have been around long enough that I assume that’s the norm.
  - shakow 3y ago
    But then you need a surge in power to put it back from lo_temp to hi_temp when you get back home, I honestly don't know if it costs more or less than just maintaining it at hi_temp, and what are the orders of magnitude involved.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      The first order approximation is that the heat loss between the inside and outside is linear with the temperature difference (delta-T) between them. So, if the delta-T is 10°C when occupied and allowed to rise to 14°C when unoccupied for 8 hours, there is a small savings. When the heating system is then commanded to recover the temperature, it will generally do a longer, single run (which for fossil fuel equipment is more efficient than a series of small runs, but for heat pumps is not significantly different [unless it engages emergency backup, which is far worse]) Overall, it's a small win, partially offset in the heating season by the heat gain from human occupancy and activity. It's almost surely not enough of a win to sum up to pay for the conditioning of an entire office building that would otherwise not be heated beyond "don't freeze the plumbing".
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Presumably a 15 degree F or whatever lower temp (and reduced use of electricity for other purposes) during the day does reduce costs somewhat. However, for most people, commuting is almost certainly a significantly larger expense.
helen___keller 3y ago
In a place like the Bay Area where the weather is pleasant and the commutes are primarily by privately owned vehicles I think it should be the case. If you live in NYC, Boston, or Chicago, and used to take the train, maybe it’s different However I think the biggest environmental issue with remote work is encouraging nationwide suburban and exurban sprawl. Still, that can only be the nations failure for not incentivizing construction of desirable urban properties so Americans feel like they need a big house and tons of land to escape their tiny urban apartment
- ghaff 3y ago
  There's nothing inherent about dense cities that make them more desirable to live in especially absent convenience to offices--no matter how carefully planned. There are tradeoffs. I could absolutely live in a pretty nice city and choose not to do so.

bippihippi1 3y ago

100 businesses are responsible for 70% of fossil fuel use. doing what you can is great, but it won't make a difference unless businesses change as well.

barry-cotter 3y ago
Those businesses are big because they’re the abstraction layer over the fact that what they produce is something a lot of people want. If they were destroyed overnight an awful lot of people would die and then their economic function would be reconstituted, probably more carbon intensive because it’s more robust to supply chain disruption.
- bippihippi1 3y ago
  a lot of people would be inconvenienced. if they are unable to farm and support themselves in case of an emergency it's due to environmental collapse. they should move somewhere less damaged. the alternative is to keep spreading the damage
lifeisstillgood 3y ago
I have heard that stat before and it turns out those business are basically shipping and freight companies, car manufacturers etc. if you somehow told the companies to stop burning oil and carbon most world trade would stop, and they would have to take peoples cars a away Yes we could reduce the impact (burn cleaner diesel on ships, avoid contrails) but this is not 100 evil companies that need to be taught a lesson - this is all of us, billions of humans and our default lifestyle
- magnuspaaske 3y ago
  The problem with that framing is that those big companies aren't just responding to consumer demand but have also actively lobbied for policies that create said demand. For instance shipping companies pay a much lower corporate tax rate than other companies and car companies have lobbied against everything from efficiency and clear air regulation to creating alternatives to a car-first transportation system. Oil companies are in a league of themselves and we're only starting to see shenanigans they've done to stall dealing with climate change.

55555 3y ago

For a (weak) counterpoint, there's an interesting article in Bloomberg today about how day-time recreational drug habits are increasing due to remote work. https://archive.is/IoY1k https://archive.is/IoY1k >> Drug recovery firm Sierra Tucson concluded from a November 2021 survey that about 20% of US workers admitted to using recreational drugs while working remotely, and also to being under the influence during virtual meetings. So it's not all rainbows and daisies.

fathyb 3y ago
In every office I worked at, more than 20% were drunk at 2 PM. I would say it was more like 35%. I don't like being around people on hard drugs, especially at work, so not having to deal with that is a huge plus!
- kagakuninja 3y ago
  I've worked at companies with beer taps in the lunch room.
allarm 3y ago
I’ve seen people using recreational drugs while working in the office, so…
- capableweb 3y ago
  I once bought a hotdog from a street vendor in Copenhagen that was seriously high on some downers in 2:00 in the morning, so clearly hotdog vendors are more likely to do drugs.
- koheripbal 3y ago
  That, but now much more

35936207 3y ago

[dead]