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

81–90 of 508 posts

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

#81

Post by dijit »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #39
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

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.

additional note: UK energy prices are currently the highest in Europe.

not sure if that makes your anecdote out of date or if it puts further shade on the parents comment.

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

#82

Post by lm28469 »

dont__panic wrote: post #74
lm28469 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

For those of us who live in a place that reaches freezing temperatures for months on end, there's no choice. If I don't heat my house, my pipes will freeze and I'll be out thousands of dollars in repair work and damage. I turn the heat down to 55 or so (the lowest the thermostat will go) when I'm away for a few days. But I've never heard of anyone not leaving their heat on some setting for this reason. Do you live so…

> Do you live somewhere that almost never drops below freezing?

Grew up in a place that reaches -25c pretty often and never heard of that. It's in europe though so we probably have better insulation. I could leave my house 3 days and no pipe would burst, I've never heard of anyone having burst pipes now that I think about it. When I went to school and my parents were at work we'd shut down the heating completely, we were pretty poor so there is that, but I don't remember being cold

When I was in california we'd have to run heating full blast 24/7 to maintain 16c indoor so that my explain a few things

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

#83

Post by gundmc »

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?

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

#84

Post by blululu »

onion2k wrote: post #49
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'm reading this correctly, you choose to live in a small apartment, suffer the commute on a train, and work in an office you'd prefer not to be in, just so you don't have to move to a big house in the suburbs with your kids.

You are reading a lot into the OP's statement. A dense city has a much smaller environmental footprint than a sprawling suburb. The statement is just about the relative environmental impact of the two options nothing more.

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

#85

Post by rr888 »

onion2k wrote: post #49
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'm reading this correctly, you choose to live in a small apartment, suffer the commute on a train, and work in an office you'd prefer not to be in, just so you don't have to move to a big house in the suburbs with your kids.

Yes I like my apartment. The commute is just a few stops. I like the office, prefer to WFH. I like the suburbs but wife would rather be in the city, I'm happy here too. The main point is that living in a city and commuting probably has a smaller environmental impact than WFH, which is the opposite of what OP is saying.

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

#86

Post by luxuryballs »

lm28469 wrote: post #37
rg111 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

500 individual houses would be heated anyway.

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

because it’s more expensive to let it get cold and then heat it back up again

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

#87

Post by parthdesai »

onion2k wrote: post #49
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'm reading this correctly, you choose to live in a small apartment, suffer the commute on a train, and work in an office you'd prefer not to be in, just so you don't have to move to a big house in the suburbs with your kids.

No, you're reading it wrong. They choose to live in a smaller apartment in the city, it's a *short commute* to office and don't have to drive 20-30 minutes for basic errands. Also, not every has/wants kids.

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

#88

Post by Eric_WVGG »

The majority of advertising on environmental initiatives ("hey go out there and recycle" and that kind of crap) is funded by polluters to shift the conversation from a manufacturer problem to a consumer problem. You need to ask "who is advertising" and "who is the market."

So let's say Zoom wanted to run an initiative like this… the market wouldn't be workers, it's be the bosses. So already you're talking about a tiny sliver of the population. No billboards or tv spends, that's for the mass market.

Okay, now that you've identified the target audience, what do they respond to? "This way of working that most of you hate, it's happy days and sunshine?" No, they respond to money. The campaign that would resonate with bosses is "your office lease costs too much money." Environmental concerns wouldn't even measure up.

Having said all this, I suppose one could make the case that remote-work-apps could advertise to "shift the conversation" amongst workers to demand remote-work for the sake of the environment, but I personally don't think anyone in America at least believes in this kind of grass-roots influence in business, that's too socialist.

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

#89

Post by adql »

version_five wrote: post #65
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.

Thanks for putting this concisely. I used to live in a small apartment and walk to work. Then when my wife and I both had to work from home, we ended up renting a big house because we still needed offices to work. Maybe there are some jobs & personal situations that allow one to wfh without additional space and costs - really though it's just shifting space around, often very inefficiently.

I mean, just bigger apartment is also solution that doesn't have that much of an environmental impact (the space "wasted" is saved by less office buildings).

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

#90

Post by leesalminen »

enkid wrote: post #51
swader999 wrote: post #47

It's because the whole climate thing is a ruse to scare us into cbdc/surveillance/control. Yes there's climate change, Yes there's human influence to it. And well sure as hell adapt to this slow moving challenge.

It's either a ruse or we will adapt. Can't be both.

There can be parties exaggerating the severity of an issue to lend credence to their proposed solution. Bonus points if the proposed solution won’t solve the root cause, but will give more power and control over people to government.

Kind of like Republicans on the southern border. The issue can exist, the extent of the issue can be exaggerated, and the proposed solution would do nothing to solve the root cause.

Post reply on HN