4 ms·

I don’t think companies can rightfully claim carbon neutral if they don’t account for the GHG emissions from their forced “working in the office” policy. They s

by woranl 3y ago

I don’t think companies can rightfully claim carbon neutral if they don’t account for the GHG emissions from their forced “working in the office” policy. They should be taxed heavily at the very least.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Much simpler to just tax things that cause GHG emissions like fossil fuels directly.
- woranl 3y ago
  In this case, taxing fossil fuel directly won’t reduce emissions. The increased cost to fossil fuel will simply be passed to the consumers. It just adds cost to the affected employees and makes them accountable for bad corporate policies to make a choice between livelihood and climate. The root of the problem is not addressed. The deep pocket should be accountable. It is the unnecessary emissions forced onto the working class that should be discouraged.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Unless everyone has unlimited money, then increasing the price of a good decreases the amount of it that is purchased. The higher the price, the less is sold, even for things with low elasticity of demand. Gas at $5/gallon? SUVs are not a problem, and commuting 1.5 hours in individual cars is a thing. Gas at $30/gallon, and you will see people demand more high density communities with walking/bicycling/public transit infrastructure.
    - woranl 3y ago
      What actually happened is the costs and wages are all jacked up and we ended up with inflation. There is no meaningful GHG emissions reduction overall.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Because the price is not high enough to curb consumption.
        woranl 3y ago
        Tax the companies that deliberately and unnecessarily decided to go against climate policies. Let them feel the direct economic impact for their action. If we are to shield these initiators from the consequence through a series of convoluted economic maneuvers, then nothing will get changed and it’s just business as usual.
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Taxing businesses for employees' GHG emissions is far more convoluted than simply taxing the things causing GHG emissions at the point of sale. You would need to figure out which employee is driving which kind of car with which kind of emissions systems, then keep records of all of that, and then hire people to audit it, and then prosecute corruption. All unnecessary. The direct impact will easily be felt by businesses who unnecessarily require commuting because they will become less competitive. They have to pay their employees more than their competitors to pay for the commute, hence the prices for their products/service are higher than a competitor who does not require commuting. Obviously, this does not manifest at $5/gallon. It needs to be something that hurts, like $30/gallon, and not just at the fuel pump, but at the refinery/extraction level so everything that causes GHG emissions gets hit. It is simple, easy to audit, fewer entities to audit, fewer chances for corruption, and easier to prosecute if need be.
        woranl 3y ago
        I beg to differ. Impact will not be easily felt by businesses if it relies on trickle down consequences. In a capitalistic society, employers and employees don’t share the equal power dynamics.
- munk-a 3y ago
  The problem is that employees don't have a limited spectrum of employer choice in the modern world and a good chunk of those employers mandate a commute. If the employer is forcing the choice on employees they should be the one to pay the tax - rather than the employee.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Employers do not force people to work for them, and they also do not have an unlimited choice of employees. Certain commute lengths make sense at certain payrates at certain commute costs. If the commute costs change, then the other two variables have to change too, and the employer will have to pay more to incentivize people further away to work for them. And if living closer to work costs more, then the employer is going to have to pay more to have their employees afford to live closer.
    - munk-a 3y ago
      The choice of who to hire and who to work for is limited on both sides... but in this case it's the employer who is making the mandate that people should commute into the office - the employer should bear the cost of that mandate.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Should the employer also pay for the costs of clothes and water to bathe oneself since they mandate being presentable? Should the employer pay for someone to commute 4 hours? How about a 2 hour flight everyday? This is all arbitrary, but it is much simpler to just let the market sort it out. Employer offers $x for employee to be in y place at time z. Employee figures out if $x is enough to incentivize them to be there at the time, and otherwise asks for more money or seeks other employment. If employer does not find sufficient employees at $x, then they have to increase.
        munk-a 3y ago
        Outside of things considered mandatory for normal life - yes, I think so. I absolutely loathe companies that make you purchase a company uniform (if they want a consistent employee appearance the company should pay for that benefit) and when it comes to bathing yourself that's a general social expectation so I don't believe it's valid to try and offload on a company - but if you are required to use certain high grade soaps (i.e. some expensive brand of hypoallergenic soap since you work at a health-care provider) or the like then I think the company should provide it. In terms of commutes I think you're thinking too much with programmer brain - when it comes to laws of society we have the reasonable person/common sense standard. Companies should reimburse a reasonable commute to the office - if you're thirty minutes by car then gas reimbursement is reasonable... but if you choose to make that commute in a helicopter the costs of operating that helicopter are not reasonable.

by woranl 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Much simpler to just tax things that cause GHG emissions like fossil fuels directly.

woranl 3y ago
In this case, taxing fossil fuel directly won’t reduce emissions. The increased cost to fossil fuel will simply be passed to the consumers. It just adds cost to the affected employees and makes them accountable for bad corporate policies to make a choice between livelihood and climate. The root of the problem is not addressed. The deep pocket should be accountable. It is the unnecessary emissions forced onto the working class that should be discouraged.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Unless everyone has unlimited money, then increasing the price of a good decreases the amount of it that is purchased. The higher the price, the less is sold, even for things with low elasticity of demand. Gas at $5/gallon? SUVs are not a problem, and commuting 1.5 hours in individual cars is a thing. Gas at $30/gallon, and you will see people demand more high density communities with walking/bicycling/public transit infrastructure.
  - woranl 3y ago
    What actually happened is the costs and wages are all jacked up and we ended up with inflation. There is no meaningful GHG emissions reduction overall.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Because the price is not high enough to curb consumption.
      - woranl 3y ago
        Tax the companies that deliberately and unnecessarily decided to go against climate policies. Let them feel the direct economic impact for their action. If we are to shield these initiators from the consequence through a series of convoluted economic maneuvers, then nothing will get changed and it’s just business as usual.
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Taxing businesses for employees' GHG emissions is far more convoluted than simply taxing the things causing GHG emissions at the point of sale. You would need to figure out which employee is driving which kind of car with which kind of emissions systems, then keep records of all of that, and then hire people to audit it, and then prosecute corruption. All unnecessary. The direct impact will easily be felt by businesses who unnecessarily require commuting because they will become less competitive. They have to pay their employees more than their competitors to pay for the commute, hence the prices for their products/service are higher than a competitor who does not require commuting. Obviously, this does not manifest at $5/gallon. It needs to be something that hurts, like $30/gallon, and not just at the fuel pump, but at the refinery/extraction level so everything that causes GHG emissions gets hit. It is simple, easy to audit, fewer entities to audit, fewer chances for corruption, and easier to prosecute if need be.
        woranl 3y ago
        I beg to differ. Impact will not be easily felt by businesses if it relies on trickle down consequences. In a capitalistic society, employers and employees don’t share the equal power dynamics.
munk-a 3y ago
The problem is that employees don't have a limited spectrum of employer choice in the modern world and a good chunk of those employers mandate a commute. If the employer is forcing the choice on employees they should be the one to pay the tax - rather than the employee.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Employers do not force people to work for them, and they also do not have an unlimited choice of employees. Certain commute lengths make sense at certain payrates at certain commute costs. If the commute costs change, then the other two variables have to change too, and the employer will have to pay more to incentivize people further away to work for them. And if living closer to work costs more, then the employer is going to have to pay more to have their employees afford to live closer.
  - munk-a 3y ago
    The choice of who to hire and who to work for is limited on both sides... but in this case it's the employer who is making the mandate that people should commute into the office - the employer should bear the cost of that mandate.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Should the employer also pay for the costs of clothes and water to bathe oneself since they mandate being presentable? Should the employer pay for someone to commute 4 hours? How about a 2 hour flight everyday? This is all arbitrary, but it is much simpler to just let the market sort it out. Employer offers $x for employee to be in y place at time z. Employee figures out if $x is enough to incentivize them to be there at the time, and otherwise asks for more money or seeks other employment. If employer does not find sufficient employees at $x, then they have to increase.
      - munk-a 3y ago
        Outside of things considered mandatory for normal life - yes, I think so. I absolutely loathe companies that make you purchase a company uniform (if they want a consistent employee appearance the company should pay for that benefit) and when it comes to bathing yourself that's a general social expectation so I don't believe it's valid to try and offload on a company - but if you are required to use certain high grade soaps (i.e. some expensive brand of hypoallergenic soap since you work at a health-care provider) or the like then I think the company should provide it. In terms of commutes I think you're thinking too much with programmer brain - when it comes to laws of society we have the reasonable person/common sense standard. Companies should reimburse a reasonable commute to the office - if you're thirty minutes by car then gas reimbursement is reasonable... but if you choose to make that commute in a helicopter the costs of operating that helicopter are not reasonable.