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

161–170 of 508 posts

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

#161

Post by crazygringo »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #155
elijaht wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average commute in a large city is definitely not 2-3 hours one way .

Come to New York, then. I have sad news for you. DC was even worse.

No, most people in NYC are not commuting 2-3 hours each way. That's insane to say.

I know a couple people who have done it -- living in deep Brooklyn far from the subway and teaching in the Bronx, or living deep in Staten Island and commuting to the Upper East Side -- but it is extremely uncommon.

The average NYC commute is 40 minutes. And only 10% of NYC workers have a commute longer than 60 minutes. [1]

[1] https://www.geotab.com/time-to-commute/

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

#162

Post by cableshaft »

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

In comparison, we have a 1600 sq ft home and only have $50 USD gas bills lately. It's definitely been higher (at least double), but we've been learning to live with a colder thermostat.

Granted this is the US, and natural gas is considerably cheaper here than in a lot of countries in Europe right now, so you probably need to at least double what I said anyway for Europe.

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

#163

Post by mod »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #156
lizknope wrote: post #136

We used to spend $400 a month on gasoline because we both commuted 25 minutes each way. During the pandemic that was down to about $100 a month. And when we did have to go somewhere the traffic was so much lower so less wasting gas in stop and go traffic. I'm supposed to go in 3 days a week. In reality I go in once a week for a few hours and no one cares as 90% of the people on my project are in other offices. I told…

Could I ask what you were driving that ~50 minutes of commuting a day would lead to 200 dollars in fuel? When I was doing the same during the pandemic, similar commute time, my car making 21ish mpg was only needing about 100 dollars in gas a month. About 10 miles with more than a dozen stop lights.

My full size 2015 GMC truck gets 22mpg on the highway. 18-19 around town.

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

#164

Post by taeric »

Oddly, it isn't quite that straight forward, is it? Specifically, you get some scale efficiencies for cities and office parks by having folks there. Especially in regards to getting food capabilities centralized. A cafeteria, I would think, uses less to feed a lot of people, than each of them using their own kitchen to store and prepare food.

That said, I do expect it is still ahead in most measures. Is a good question and I would love to see a comprehensive analysis.

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

#165

Post by Jorengarenar »

thedangler wrote: post #129
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.,…

Very true. And I did some rough estimations on why my employer wants us in the office. They make $115k a month of employees buying coffee. That is only coffee, and that was a very conservative estimate of only 40% of employees buying only a coffee on an average of $2. This doesn't take into account parking we have to pay for, or lunch, or snacks.

You have to pay for the coffee?!

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

#168

Post by agentultra »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #133
blululu wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 are designed for people instead of moving traffic.

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

#169

Post by taeric »

crazygringo wrote: post #161
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come to New York, then. I have sad news for you. DC was even worse.

No, most people in NYC are not commuting 2-3 hours each way. That's insane to say. I know a couple people who have done it -- living in deep Brooklyn far from the subway and teaching in the Bronx, or living deep in Staten Island and commuting to the Upper East Side -- but it is extremely uncommon. The average NYC commute is 40 minutes. And only 10% of NYC workers have a commute longer than 60 minutes. [1] [1] https:/…

I assert that most of the folks that claim insane large commutes have been bitten by what happens if you don't adjust how you commute to a place. This particularly bites people that move to a city, as they want to keep their car commute all too often. Similarly, it bites folks that move out of the city, as they want to stay on transit, but that drops in effectiveness as you leave the density.

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

#170

Post by [deleted] »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #133
blululu wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN