Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

321–330 of 508 posts

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

#321
The environmental argument is sometimes used, but often (and often correctly) seen as someone who prefers remote work dishonestly slapping an environmental argument on it (dishonest, because the actual primary reason they're pushing for it doesn't match the stated primary reason).

It isn't as clear-cut as you'd expect either - one argument I've heard is that in areas where air conditioning is a large contributor to energy use and homes are poorly insulated, someone staying home and cooling their home with an inefficient, small air conditioner may be worse than having that person commute to an office instead. This argument is often generalized and sometimes dishonestly used by people who prefer office work to argue that teleworking is actually bad for the environment.

I found a meta-study https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8a84/... that claims vehicle miles traveled increase (because people move further away) while the studies generally claimed a reduction in overall energy consumption.

Several studies claim grossly exaggerated environmental impacts for streaming/data transfers. I don't remember seeing it misused to dismiss the environmental argument for teleworking, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it. The worst offender here is the Shift Project, which overstated the results of their already flawed study by another factor of 8 in an interview, and then used that huge mistake to argue that their other mistakes aren't that relevant because they're small (compared to the initial mistake, not compared to their claimed impact). https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/shift-project-really-...

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

#322

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.,…

>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. You can flip that around too - If remote work was so great for productivity, all companies would switch to it? There really isn't any point arguing over it, because it doesn't change the current state of affairs. My belief is that for remot…

Except we have studies that show companies continue to adopt patently absurd and destructive behaviors? Prior to the pandemic, it was the open-office floorplan, and study after study said it was a failure on basically any metric: productivity, spreading of disease, stress…

Now we have remote work, and we're starting to get studies that show the impact it has on productivity… (and thus far, the ones I've seen show favorable results!)

Someday, scientists will finally reach the ultimate conclusion: that many companies routinely make poor short-term tradeoffs to their long-term detriment.

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

#323
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Alternatively, because of the expectation that partners will not be around 24/7, people may have been selecting sub-optimal partners. If remote work becomes the norm your standards for a long term partner may become higher as you need to ensure you do not get tired of being around them.

Interesting point. Would it reduce the "individualism" present in the US? I've always found it interesting how much companies market individualism (specially fashion companies). More intense individualism also makes it harder to find another person who can be tolerated due to their individualism.

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

#324

"No form of transport requires less energy than telecommuting" is quite the statement. If your work force bikes or walks to work, pretty sure that has far lower energy requirements than having all of them telecommute.

I don't think that's correct, unless I am missing something? Telecommuting: Turn on your PC in a room of your house and start work Biking/Walking to Work: Bike/walk to work and turn on a PC in an office. What's the extra telecommuting energy expenditure? Servers for a VPN?

People not all using their own computers and internet connections, during meetings because they're all in the same room (or in a room with a single computer and internet connection), as well as people not all needing to each have lights, heating, etc. on at home because they're all in a shared building with (almost certainly more efficient) HVAC.

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

#325
post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it's fair to point out so many of the similarities between the people at the top and the bottom ... there are also differences. Notably, Musk is an outlier in many ways. The vast, vast majority of CEO's are highly conscientious at least in civil terms. They are 'restrained' if anything.

Again, even if they have some qualities that make them different in order to achieve big things, I would expect a Gauss curve to represent most traits distribution at the top like at the bottom. While most people show restrain, a few will be exhuberant, no matter the sample.

'Restraint' is just something that separates Musk from regular CEO's.

Most CEO's absolutely stand out otherwise.

Here is John Chambers on Charlie Rose [1]

Jean Liu [2]

Just from those conversations you can see how way out from the norm they are.

[1] https://charlierose.com/videos/27937

[2] https://charlierose.com/videos/31044

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

#326

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…

US cities don’t do well without the suburbs, it’s a symbiotic relationship, you can’t separate the suburb cost from cities, suburban residents go to the cities to work where they register their economic value.

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

#327
post #22
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.

A house used for what? Standing around?

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

#329

"No form of transport requires less energy than telecommuting" is quite the statement. If your work force bikes or walks to work, pretty sure that has far lower energy requirements than having all of them telecommute.

I don't think that's correct, unless I am missing something? Telecommuting: Turn on your PC in a room of your house and start work Biking/Walking to Work: Bike/walk to work and turn on a PC in an office. What's the extra telecommuting energy expenditure? Servers for a VPN?

Lower productivity through telecommuting. What should take 2 weeks now takes 3. That's 50% more resources.

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

#330

Back in 1964 Arthur C. Clarke predicted [1] that by the year 2000 cities as we know them would no longer exist. We would live in a world of instant communication where we could contact anyone on Earth without leaving our home. This technology would make it possible for many people to conduct business without having to be present at a specific physical location. Today, we know the technology Clarke was talking about a…

Did you mean that he overestimated social progress?

Consider that he'd already moved to Sri Lanka in the 1950s, ostensibly out of his love for diving. He was primed to see the benefits of WFH and telecommunication, and certainly able to exploit the flexibility in his own life and career.

Ironically, with his adventurism and individualism, perhaps his imagination was too limited to think that many people are self-limiting. The companies you speak of are not abstract entities forcing the poor humans to live unwanted lives. They are the people---identifying with the rituals of office life and demanding conformance from one another.

Post reply on HN