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

21–30 of 508 posts

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

#21

Post by zer0tonin »

hayst4ck wrote: post #15
luminouslow wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you but we still use the internet/zoom etc. in the office so you still need datacenters >lack of commuting incentivizes un-environmental and inefficient suburban sprawl I dont understand this point, IMO commuting leads to more suburban sprawl? Also i think this is a very USA-centric problem.

Sure zoom is still used, but I would be surprised if it's on the same order of magnitude. I'm not trying to argue that commuting is more environmentally friendly, it's very likely not, only that I need a bit more substantiation than "it's obviously true," and I particularly would want substantiation on the long term. I also would want to understand if electric cars are being accounted for. The reason not to live in t…

My team is located in 3 different timezones. Using zoom/meet is a requirement for absolutely every single one of our meetings, whether we are in office or at home.

Situations like this are extremely common in the industry, at least common enough to justify almost every company I've ever word equipping their meeting rooms with video-conferencing hardware.

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

#22

Post by nicbou »

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

A house used 100% of the time is more efficient than a house used 50% of the time + an office used 50% of the time.

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

#23

Post by kleinsch »

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…

Bc local telecommuting means there’s no city center, no commercial traffic there, no business tax base. Look at what’s happening to downtown SF. You can debate whether it’s taking the city in a good direction or not, but few elected officials are going to endorse their city becoming smaller or having less income.

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

#24

Post by rg111 »

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

500 individual houses would be heated anyway.

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

#25

Post by GrazeMor »

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…

I don't think expensive public transport is the problem. It can be crucial for some people. The fact that the article says some people need "short stops on trips to and from work, short-distance trips and a higher frequency of trips" just means the public transport needs to be tweaked, not completely scrapped.

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

#26

Post by rr888 »

I 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.

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

#27

Post by gregoriol »

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

Most houses stay heated during the day anyway, remote work or not, it doesn't change the situation that much. And offices will remain heated whether there are full or only half of the employees actually in the building.

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

#28

Post by chitowneats »

rr888 wrote: post #26

I 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.

I completely agree. Ever since WFH started I'm feeling this gravitational pull away from the city center because of cost of living and space considerations. If salary takes a nosedive this will become untenable for many.

Mountains of research show that this will increase total emissions. It would be one thing if the U.S. was developing medium density suburban cores, but that seems to be on the table in very, very few places.

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

#29

Post by [deleted] »

lm28469 wrote: post #10
luminouslow wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>heating an office space with 500+ people is much more efficient than heating 500 individual houses Citation needed. I would argue its very hard to make any general statement about this. In my case the office is much more wasteful than the space I use for remote work for a multitude of reasons.

I said I'm not convinced, it obviously isn't a general thing. A friend of mine spends 500+ euros per month on gas for heating since he works from home, no way on earth his office uses 500 per person and per month on heat

[deleted]

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

#30

Post by david-gpu »

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…

> [Subway] then requires subsidies to run

I wish we used the same logic for roads/streets as well. Except for toll roads, which only get a partial subsidy, roads are fully subsidized by the taxpayer.

Since others get fully subsidized roads for their private vehicles, I argue public transit should be fully subsidized as well.

Post reply on HN