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

181–190 of 508 posts

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

#181

Post by bonniemuffin »

mod wrote: post #163
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could I ask what you were driving that ~50 minutes of commuting a day would lead to 200 dollars in fuel? When I was doing the same during the pandemic, similar commute time, my car making 21ish mpg was only needing about 100 dollars in gas a month. About 10 miles with more than a dozen stop lights.

My full size 2015 GMC truck gets 22mpg on the highway. 18-19 around town.

That seems like an unfortunate choice of vehicle to commute many hours per week alone in, unless maybe you work in construction and need to haul things to the site (in which case spending more on transportation seems worthwhile as a core part of the job function.)

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

#182

Post by madsbuch »

simonmesmith wrote: post #7

Similarly, I often wonder why cities don’t promote local telecommuting over building expensive public transportation infrastructure. Building one kilometre of subway costs anywhere from around $100 million to $1.6 billion ( https://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/events/how-much-does-it-cost... ), and then requires subsidies to run. Why not use this money to provide incentives for people to telecommute? And while some might…

This would appear to go into a much more fundamental questions about our society.

Currently, when we see recession, we can increase government spending. This is usually done in infrastructure – we give people a job, and in return we get infrastructure, nice!

But if we agree that infrastructure does not provide that amount of value we either need to figure other large scale projects that 1) provide value and 2) requires a lot of manual labor or we need to not found money distribution in work (an alternative could be UBI here).

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

#183

Post by randomdata »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #137
randomdata wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not seem that weird. He is saying the bigger home away from the hustle and bustle is his preference, but accepts a smaller home in the city because he is prioritizing his career in that location. If the career was mobile, there would be no reason to make that tradeoff.

If you can work from home, you have plenty of lifestyle choices that do not lead to a higher environmental impact. Choosing the one that will damage environment more is a luxury choice. It does sound weird to me that this is considered as the only alternative.

There was no suggestion of it being the only alternative, just the choice he would choose if his career was no longer location bound. Someone else in the same situation may choose differently, but there was also no attempt to speak on behalf of others, only himself. There is nothing weird about people having preferences.

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

#184

Post by Tade0 »

naasking wrote: post #176
Tade0 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, sprawl is only a problem because of commutes. I agree to an extent. To be completely fair it is less efficient than densely packed cities in terms of energy and cost of providing services like sewage/garbage disposal. That being said I see it as a tradeoff like any other and believe people should have the right to choose how they live as long as they bear the costs of that.

Yes, there are some inefficiencies with sprawl. There are also mental health issues with dense cities.

100% with you on that. I live 4km from the city centre, so essentially walking distance.

I went there on the weekend. It's very lively, but I wouldn't want this sort of liveliness during the evening when the only thing I need is to wind down. I prefer living here, halfway from the centre to the city limits.

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

#185

Post by bonniemuffin »

gundmc wrote: post #83
deepGem wrote: post #79

Two main problems 1. Middle and senior management who don't want to lose control or be rendered less effective. 2. Engineers who are not trained in written communication and largely cannot autonomously move a group towards a goal without a lot of supervision. If you solve for no 2, then that acts counter to no 1 - because middle management will be questioned - why do we need you ? If a group of engineers can function…

What do you consider the role of a manager that makes it change significantly based on where their team is sitting?

One key role for a manager is being able to detect who's feeling unmotivated or trying to bullshit you or has something going on in their life that's affecting their work, so that you can dig in to understand more and address the issues proactively. When you casually see people in person every day throughout the day, it's easier to notice when someone's demeanor changes, vs. mostly talking on slack and having a couple of zoom meetings per week.

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

#187

Post by raxxorraxor »

agentultra wrote: post #168
raxxorraxor wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt the footprint difference would be in any way significant. Depends on the city layout maybe, even with the additional logistical difficulties. For many it is well worth it to escape the noise of high-density residential areas, especially with kids or for people that just like nature. Your footprint is probably > 95% consumption anyway. I don't understand how high-density living seems to be so attractive to man…

Because the land use is that much more productive. High density cities pay for suburbs which are a net-drain on city finances and are terrible for the environment. The numbers in North America are pretty staggering. There are plenty of examples around the world where dense urban living can be rather pleasant. You can walk to get your food, kids can cycle around town, and you can sit and gather in public places that a…

That can always be an argument. You could place all humans in Great Britain easily. Would perhaps be more productive as well. Imagine all the biotopes that could strive again. But it isn't a question about productivity and I believe the vast majority live in high density setups for utility. At least I do. It is nice enough but it remains a compromise.

Not from the US, but expect this story about high density areas paying for the others is a stupendous political argument to get people angry at those suburbians and not too much else. The distribution of funds is probably unjust, but the solution is certainly not to bring everyone into high density living.

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

#188

Post by ibejoeb »

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).…

I don't intend to de-rail the convo, but this is an important one.

> improve inter-family relationships

It could, maybe, but it can also be a significant source of strife. It's tough spending all day, every day with someone. Because of that, you find that people are either looking for larger homes in order to have private work spaces or renting office space. Both of those shift the cost burden from the company to the individual.

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

#189

Post by makestuff »

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).…

Aren't suburban neighborhoods actually bad for the environment though. Also the lack population density makes it hard to support the infrastructure costs for a large area with fewer people.

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

#190

Post by primis »

crazygringo wrote: post #161
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come to New York, then. I have sad news for you. DC was even worse.

No, most people in NYC are not commuting 2-3 hours each way. That's insane to say. I know a couple people who have done it -- living in deep Brooklyn far from the subway and teaching in the Bronx, or living deep in Staten Island and commuting to the Upper East Side -- but it is extremely uncommon. The average NYC commute is 40 minutes. And only 10% of NYC workers have a commute longer than 60 minutes. [1] [1] https:/…

When I worked in NYC a few years ago, I was living in an apartment on Long Island, the LIRR was 1h30m on average, plus 10 minute drive to get to the train station, plus another 20 minute walk from Penn to 3rd ave where I worked. On rainy days I'd take the subway but there isn't a direct route so I'd have to change at times square so it always ended up taking longer than walking.

Easily 2+ hours each way from door to door. And let me tell you, the LIRR is vastly overfilled during peak. You're lucky to get a seat for that 90 minute leg of your trip, and if you didn't, you were probably sardine packed in the aisle.

Post reply on HN