No post body was provided.
Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?
141–150 of 508 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?
#142I live in a small apartment a short train ride from the office. It isn't big enough to work from home. If I worked from home I'd get a big house in the suburbs, and buy a car to get around. My environmental footprint would be much bigger. Edit - if I didn't have kids I'd totally have a beach house and a mountain house to live in. Maybe in different countries too.
If I'm reading this correctly, you choose to live in a small apartment, suffer the commute on a train, and work in an office you'd prefer not to be in, just so you don't have to move to a big house in the suburbs with your kids.
You are interpreting a lot into a very short comment, presumably based on your own preferences. Some people don't mind commuting or even enjoy it, some people prefer living in a decently sized apartment in a city instead of a single family home in the suburbs. It is a matter of preference and personally, I can see the appeal in the approach posted by OP
Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for putting this concisely. I used to live in a small apartment and walk to work. Then when my wife and I both had to work from home, we ended up renting a big house because we still needed offices to work. Maybe there are some jobs & personal situations that allow one to wfh without additional space and costs - really though it's just shifting space around, often very inefficiently.
I mean, just bigger apartment is also solution that doesn't have that much of an environmental impact (the space "wasted" is saved by less office buildings).
Additional space in a city is significantly more expensive than the same space in the suburbs because each square foot is in much higher demand.
Some people like the suburban lifestyle, but the reason even people who prefer the amenities of cities move out is that it's the only affordable way to get a lot of space.
The solution is vastly more urban construction to meet demand, but development and regulatory changes have been slow.
Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?
#144I actually don't know the answer to this question and what baffles me the most is hearing what urban/transport activists have to say about that - those I talked with either ignore it completely or argue that it's worse because it "induces sprawl". I have quite a few people in my social circle who moved out to the suburbs/countryside and remote work was by and large considered only after they moved and found that they…
> I talked with either ignore it completely or argue that it's worse because it "induces sprawl".
But, sprawl is only a problem because of commutes. If you had sprawl with lots of small, local commercial outlets, then that's just perfect. No long commutes to work and no long commutes to get life's necessities.
Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?
#145There 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.,…
> Employees waste 2 of their 16
I suspect that you don't commute to a large city (either via car or mass transit).
It's more like 4-6 hours.
Crazy.
Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?
#146Because 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…
It is really stupid, and I hate that people tend to cut random liberties because they could maybe affect the environment ever so slightly. In reality this is so insignificant, it looks more like a panic than an attempt to a solution. You also loose political capital for serious undertakings.
Truth is that composting your tea bags isn't that relevant. We have to look at the large picture and see if we can curb the largest emissions (from which everyone profits).
Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?
#147I actually don't know the answer to this question and what baffles me the most is hearing what urban/transport activists have to say about that - those I talked with either ignore it completely or argue that it's worse because it "induces sprawl". I have quite a few people in my social circle who moved out to the suburbs/countryside and remote work was by and large considered only after they moved and found that they…
The goal of remote work is not to drive everyone out of the city. It's a success if we allow enough people to move to the suburbs. Everyone benefits, including people that love the city life.
Plus, remote work is still not the norm in every company, so it's difficult for someone like you and me to move to the suburbs even if we wanted to, because we can't be 100% certain our next jobs will be remote.
Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?
#148Because "Pro-Environment" messaging is neither about being preserving the environment, or about the environment. It's about co-opting the relevant ideal within the overton window to signal some form of ethically accepted form of compliance.
Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?
#149Because 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).…
> and revitalized suburban neighborhoods (e.g. more walkable areas)
Without other changes, this would not happen (in the US at least). The default would be every more cookie-cutter suburban sprawl, with the cul-de-sac-y construction of these neighborhoods creating a more labrynthian, difficult-to-walk place to live.
Until there is more mixed-use zoning in the US, with high enough density to justify frequent public transit arrival times, WFH would only save the car and infra wear-and-tear (and pollution level) from commuting, but it would not necessarily create a "third place" automatically.
Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?
#150Because most of workers have not enough pro-ability to adapt a remote working environment. More details, to work remotely efficiently, you need to: - Have good writing skills, because communication is asynchronous most of the time. - Task description needs to be as clear as possible ! You don't want to spend most of time to explain what the specification means. - Self-management and time management: How to do things…
Sorry if I am reading this wrong, but this seems to suggest that the solution is micromanagement.
Even if working from office, I'd expect any professional to know how to communicate effectively, and is able to manage their time and tasks efficiently. If they cannot do it remotely, then I'd worry about their performance in the office also.