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

31–40 of 508 posts

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

#31

Post by teh_klev »

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

I work from home full time, my gas bill is a fraction of that (~GBP100/month), and that's even accounting for the crazy energy cost increases we've seen in the UK.

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

#32

Post by tluyben2 »

chitowneats wrote: post #28
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…

That seems more a US thing though because of how things are laid out? I picked my multiple places of living (EU) to have everything walking distance and I managed that for the past 30 years with wfh, city or not. We don't touch the car (or anything else) for weeks on end.

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

#34

Post by lm28469 »

mcv wrote: post #12
lm28469 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is that € 500 for just the working hours? Because homes are also generally heated for other uses than work. Those reasons don't go away if you work at the office. If you've got a spouse working from home, or kids coming from school, that house is going to be heated anyway.

> Because homes are also generally heated for other uses than work

I've never heard of anyone heating their home when not in it, given the other comments it seems like it's the norm, weird

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

#35

Post by adam_arthur »

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

Yeah, but many offices are likely to be converted to other uses, rather than persist with partial occupation. Hotel, residential etc

People often say it’s cost prohibitive, but it’s been done many times before, and valuations of Offices will get so depressed that conversions begin to look very lucrative

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

#36

Post by m000 »

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.

Also, working from home would reduce the demand for the train routes. This in turn would mean that the route would be scheduled more sparsely, or even discontinued*. Which would force more people to use a car.

*And this is why management and operation of public utilities should be policy-driven rather than profit-driven.

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

#37

Post by lm28469 »

rg111 wrote: post #24
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.

Why would you heat a house if you're not in it. Do people really do that ?

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

#38

Post by itake »

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.

> 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.

For me, WFH means I can walk/bike/drive to the local coffee shop or public library to work, but still live in a cramped studio apartment.

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

#39

Post by VBprogrammer »

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

A 2kW electric heater can heat up any reasonable size office room up to a temperature where you are going to have to strip to your underwear (or turn it off) in under an hour in my experience.

Even if it's on 8 hours a day constantly, 5 days a week, 4 weeks a month that's 320kWh or just over £100 a month at UK energy prices.

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

#40

Post by humanrebar »

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.

Perhaps it doesn't apply to you, but it's natural for many (most?) to require larger or smaller places as needs of immediate family evolve. I don't know that larger places are necessarily optional or environmentally worse.
Post reply on HN