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

331–340 of 508 posts

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

#331

Post by osigurdson »

deathanatos wrote: post #322
trap_goes_hot wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 fav…

I can't imagine many startups opting to rent expensive office space when they don't have to. It's quite a tax on talent, especially if top talent doesn't want to be there anyway. Furthermore the prestige associated with having an office is kind of subdued at this point. Actually, I think most investors would probably think it is a mistake unless the physical space is truly needed for working with matter (not only information).

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

#332

Post by osigurdson »

gman2093 wrote: post #278
chrisseaton wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They make $115k a month of employees buying coffee ... parking we have to pay for, or lunch, or snacks Lol what? Why are they making you pay for these things?

Some places make money selling software, some places make money selling out their employees!

It is back to the coal mining days it seems.

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

#333

Post by anikom15 »

Spivak wrote: post #210
makestuff wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's complicated, so yes because the reasons you state but in a world where significantly fewer people commute it becomes less of an issue and so it's a matter of changing the things we can change. So yes, wouldn't it be great people lived in denser environments? Oh yeah, but that's not the choice we're making today. The choice we're making is given that lots of people live a 20-60 minute drive from their jobs would…

The incentive to live in a dense environment is being close to work. If work is at home then that incentive is gone.

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

#334

Post by warkdarrior »

driverdan wrote: post #287
brandmeyer wrote: post #260

For my case, it was worse. When normalized to dollars, I spent nearly 2x more in HVAC expenses compared to driving's fuel costs, and that's with a modest commute (20 miles). Its much less energy intensive to air condition one large medium-density building than many smaller low-density buildings.

That sounds like you're either running your HVAC at extreme temps or have very poor insulation.

Or that he is running HVAC for his 2000 sqft house, vs running HVAC for his 180 sqft office space (where 180 sqft are dedicated to him out of some large space shared with others).

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

#335

Post by braingenious »

Because of the amount of money parked in commercial real estate. Organizations that own office buildings tend to be immensely influential in local politics.

This is an answer to both “Why is remote work currently not advertised as a pro climate environment initiative?” and “Why won’t remote work ever be advertised as a pro climate environment initiative, ever, for the foreseeable future?”

In a word: Rent.

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

#336

Post by hiAndrewQuinn »

osigurdson wrote: post #122

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.,…

An interesting implication of this is that there's probably a lot of money to be made in the long run in shorting present-day valuable city real estate.

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

#337

Post by agentultra »

twobitshifter wrote: post #326
agentultra wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it symbiotic? The developed, urban areas generate enough revenue to subsidize suburbs. Without those urban zones suburbs cannot generate enough revenue to provide the infrastructure and services they use.

If the suburbs were to be re-zoned for more dense development and mix-use zoning I don't think the urban areas would see any drop in revenue. They would probably see an increase.

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

#338

Post by brandmeyer »

driverdan wrote: post #287
brandmeyer wrote: post #260

For my case, it was worse. When normalized to dollars, I spent nearly 2x more in HVAC expenses compared to driving's fuel costs, and that's with a modest commute (20 miles). Its much less energy intensive to air condition one large medium-density building than many smaller low-density buildings.

That sounds like you're either running your HVAC at extreme temps or have very poor insulation.

Big family house in the suburbs with aggressive demand scheduling (ie, we let the temp float a fair amount when nobody is home) versus high-efficiency car.

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

#339

Post by jfitzpa22 »

Some companies simply don't care about the environmental benefits of remote work; they want their employees located together in brick and mortar offices. Also, and while I agree that remote work seems the more environmentally friendly of the two options, I am unaware of any study that has compared the carbon footprint of telecommuting with that of the traditional commute. Does anyone know of such a study?

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

#340

Post by psychomugs »

stcroixx wrote: post #33

Because employers do not really care about the environment. They’re pretending to because they think supporting the cause positively impacts their revenue. When they have a choice to make an impact, like now, they pass.

The best part is when they deflect blame onto the individual and tell us to "do our part" while they guiltlessly continue their polluting practices. Just like they do with mental health.
Post reply on HN