Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 508 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#121

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #104
rr888 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I like my apartment. The commute is just a few stops. I like the office, prefer to WFH. I like the suburbs but wife would rather be in the city, I'm happy here too. The main point is that living in a city and commuting probably has a smaller environmental impact than WFH, which is the opposite of what OP is saying.

Why not living in the city in a sufficiently big apartment and working from home?

The message of the original post appears to be that all other things being equal the poster would rather live in the suburbs in a larger home with a more carbon-intensive lifestyle. However, the misery of the commute from the suburbs to the office overwhelms that preference resulting in the decision to live in the city.

i.e. the assumption that the reduction in commuting would not be offset by changes in other areas is unjustified.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#122

Post by osigurdson »

There is nothing more illogical in modern society than commuting to an office every day. Employees waste 2 of their 16 available waking hours in the non-productive commute while incurring significant financial costs (lease/insurance/fuel/energy) in order to support this patently absurd activity. Employers waste time and energy negotiating leases, re-arranging offices, purchasing AV equipment for meeting rooms, etc., in addition to paying the likely enormously expensive lease itself. The impacts on the environment, the number of hours of human life wasted in commute, the pointless buildings and associated costs to employers as well as the public infrastructure to support it (roads, trains, busses, etc.) are all incredibly wasteful. Surely, all of this could only be justified if physical presence had a dramatic impact on productivity. Yet, we cannot tell one way or the other if it actually improves outcomes.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#123

Post by [deleted] »

eloff wrote: post #118

Because people don't look at issues like climate change rationally. We're attacking the problem almost randomly based on what's politically expedient/ popular instead of what gives the biggest greenhouse gas reduction for the price. To phrase it another way, our governments are fucking stupid and it makes me sad. If we really care about this problem, we should attack it coldly, rationally, as an engineer or economist…

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#124

Post by leetcodesucks »

Could it be climate change does not exist and was fabricated by mega corps and the politicians they control to drive social movements they find convenient and which make us poor but ignore social movements that could also help their made up problem but make us happier and wealthier perhaps ?

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#125

Post by rr888 »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #104
rr888 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I like my apartment. The commute is just a few stops. I like the office, prefer to WFH. I like the suburbs but wife would rather be in the city, I'm happy here too. The main point is that living in a city and commuting probably has a smaller environmental impact than WFH, which is the opposite of what OP is saying.

Why not living in the city in a sufficiently big apartment and working from home?

There are very few 3-4 bedroom apartments around but a townhouse or similar could work. Maybe I'm just stuck in a rut, I like my lifestyle right now and happy to continue. If I was WFH every day it just feels like it is artificially expensive to live in a big city and I should move. It opens a lot of alternatives which could be very good but I automatically ignore them because I'm happy right now. And the wife probably doesn't want that log cabin in the woods - so its easier not to think about it. :)

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#126

Post by Root_Denied »

adql wrote: post #107
lm28469 wrote: post #6

I'm not convinced it is a net positive in the end. Especially for big companies, heating an office space with 500+ people is probably much more efficient than heating 500 individual houses for example Not everyone commute with an ICE vehicle too

Yes but those people don't live in the office... the office wouldn't need to exist in the first place. Could be apartment block instead. Most people also like to come back to warm house so heating is running during the day

Also if you have pets you can't really turn off the heat (or AC in the summer for desert areas), and children usually get home in the afternoon while people are still working.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#127

Post by bilbo0s »

Someone1234 wrote: post #46

Because corporations are doing the majority of that pro-environmental advertising. I mean that both in terms of companies making changes (both real and greenwashing) and the News/Media corporations reporting on it. Telecommuting could be absolutely massive for reduced emissions, could bring down urban house prices, improve inter-family relationships, and revitalized suburban neighborhoods (e.g. more walkable areas).…

This.

We need to learn that corporations care even less about the environment than they care about remote work. Invoking the environment to gain their support of remote work is just misunderstanding their priorities. The game is to make remote work attractive to them.

You think Elon Musk wants to hear your spiel about the environment? Or does he want you to get back into your office and work a 16 hour day?

If we want to get corporate america on the side of remote work, then we need to do it with dollars and cents. Not "indirect savings", not "improved morale", but concrete examples of how remote work is increasing their profit. (Even better, would be if it could increase their revenue as well. That would be a slam dunk.) We almost got there with the idea of lowering rent costs after the pandemic, but now it just seems that the idea of getting rid of office space in favor of remote work is getting a lot of push back. Maybe even backlash would be a better term.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#129

Post by thedangler »

osigurdson wrote: post #122

There is nothing more illogical in modern society than commuting to an office every day. Employees waste 2 of their 16 available waking hours in the non-productive commute while incurring significant financial costs (lease/insurance/fuel/energy) in order to support this patently absurd activity. Employers waste time and energy negotiating leases, re-arranging offices, purchasing AV equipment for meeting rooms, etc.,…

Very true. And I did some rough estimations on why my employer wants us in the office. They make $115k a month of employees buying coffee. That is only coffee, and that was a very conservative estimate of only 40% of employees buying only a coffee on an average of $2. This doesn't take into account parking we have to pay for, or lunch, or snacks.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#130

Post by leetcodesucks »

_joel wrote: post #99
swader999 wrote: post #47

It's because the whole climate thing is a ruse to scare us into cbdc/surveillance/control. Yes there's climate change, Yes there's human influence to it. And well sure as hell adapt to this slow moving challenge.

I'm glad the majority of the world disagrees with you.

I don’t remember anyone voting to triple their electricity bills. I for one don’t believe all the mega Corps advertising and social movements like cancer cell fake meat being better for the environment
Post reply on HN