This is such a no-brainer that I’m surprised the climate crowd are not advocating more aggressively for it.
Something like 70% of greenhouse gasses are produced by 100 companies globally. This is like using a cup to empty an Olympic sized pool: yes, it does something, but not enough.
We need to maintain focus on the big producers and affect change there first and foremost.
deleted by creator
This article talks specifically about energy usage, not consumption of products. Work from home likely wouldn’t have an impact in consumed goods.
I’m a WFH employee, and my company has no plans to change it. I’m all for WFH. I brought up the issue of 100 companies producing 70% of greenhouse gases because to me this article lines up with the idea of us reducing our individual carbon footprint, which we’ve found out in the last few years was just a coordinated effort by the fossil fuel industry to deflect their responsibility to us.
All of these efforts are good. WFH is good, renewable energies are good, EVs are debatable (depending on where you stand on how the rare materials needed for the batteries are sourced) but overall better than gas and diesel. But at the end of the day, if your tub is overflowing you need to turn off the tap first before you pick up the mop.
deleted by creator
What are those companies doing? They are selling stuff to people.
I think work from home and also the adoption of the 4 day work week will be critical to tackling the climate crisis
Four day work will cut the emission even more. Just saying.
Isn’t that also what they’re saying?
Yes!
It’s also the 20% payrise we all absofuckinglutely need.
But think of the commercial property prices!
But at what cost? Employees are less productive without the watchful eye of a skilled manager.
Another MrBusinessMan banger 😄
Employees don’t work from home!!1!11!1!1!!
individual civilian emissions are so inconsequential in the grand scheme of things that it makes me laugh when people talk about shit like this. A vast, vast majority comes from industries, not individuals driving a car to work.
They are, but when large masses of people are allowed to significantly reduce their emissions and with no downsides (other than middle managers’ feelings, which no one but them consider a downside), then it’s worth it.
Tell that to my desk chair hahaa pass the crudité.
Fuck, just let us live our lives.
I find this quite surprising. When I’m working from home during the winter, I’m heating a lot of the house that would normally be unheated.
I would have assumed that bringing multiple people together into a single heated space would have been more energy efficient
This is based in the US. I imagine a lot of that also comes from air con, very long commutes and other wasted office energy use.
From the article > The main causes of remote workers’ reduced emissions were less office energy use, as well as fewer emissions from a daily commute.
Again - I’m really surprised that net energy use is less for distributed workers (setting aside commmute energy use).
deleted by creator
Also they cool down offices because “business clothes” mean pants and at least golf shirts but probably long sleeve shirts and maybe a tie for some reason. Meaning the men need to have it at 67 or so to not sweat balls and the women wind up wearing cardigans in August. Meanwhile i just try to keep it under 80 in my place, use a personal fan and maybe hang a little brain out of my short shorts while in a Zoom call.
There’s so many other things to consider, including e.g. traffic
Yes, of course. But I’m calling out the one factor that they specifically talk about
What’s more efficient? Heating a small home that id well insulated and geared towards economical energy use or heating massive empty spaces of a practically non-insulated office building with massive heaters while at the same times the homes are being heated? (Albeit to a lower temperature)
There’s a whole lot of assumptions there. Anyway, the report says I’m wrong.
I imagine a lot of people have the air on for indoor animals while they go to the office.
And then there is the guys in the factory and the warehouse who can not be afforded this “luxury”. The doctors and nurses, the school- and kindergarten-teachers who need to be at a specific place to do their jobs. This proposal simply does not work for everybody. The whole “work from home debate” seem to focus on a particular kind of jobs and disregards that all those jobs only exists, because manufacturing takes place in China. I’d love to see a change of focus, from product price to quality and sustainability of industry products to go along with qualified manufacturing jobs returning to Europe. And in that context we can hopefully stop shifting the exploitation of workers to Asia along with the Jobs and exploit our own workers again. NO! Of course, not exploit them as much anymore.
I’m one of those people who needs to be at a specific location. That has nothing to do with WFH for other people, and I think the option should be broadly available for jobs for which it’s possible. There is no one solution that addresses all possible situations.
I’m not saying working from home should not be available for anybody who wants to do it, sorry if I sounded like it. I just wanted to emphasize that it is a solution for a specific subset of employees. I see a big potential to alienate a big chunk of people if we don’t put this in context.
You are right but massive WFH adoption where possible would mean less commuters, less idling in trafic. Maybe even leaves space for some downsizeing of the car based infra we have, to be replaced with bike friendly or more walkable spaces/roads.
The manufacturing jobs are a tough one. It would be nice to see a shift, but not only by bringing the jobs back, but also by lifting up the exploited workers in Asia for example. It might just level the market to be competitive? I have no idea hoe it would look like, just a thouhht.
The manufacturing question is a tough one, because changing this requires taking short term profits away from companies and exchanging them for a long term better future. That’s a tough idea to sell. But I guess I’m derailing the discussion a bit with that point.
Letting people work from home is an easy decision in contrast. That’s just about changing some insecure managers minds. You can usually do that with numbers. Same goes for 4 day work weeks. Both of those are inevitable because companies who adopt it will have a competitive advantage in terms of acquiring talent in the next 10 years.
IDK what to tell ya dude. It’s an option for a lot of people. Sorry you work in a warehouse i guess?
Also don’t look in your neighbor’s bowl unless it’s to make sure they have enough.
Its not specific to warehouses. This is how most of the industrial sector operates. This is where all the products and their precursors come from every single day. Reducing production reduces supply (in term sky rocketing price) and literally every single part of the supply chain of almost all products are actively strained.
Again I agree with the other commenter that it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen for office workers, just that everyone who spouts this off completely forgets about a VERY LARGE and IMPACTFUL portion of the labor market
Sorry you work in a warehouse i guess? […] Also don’t look in your neighbor’s bowl unless it’s to make sure they have enough.
a. I don’t.
b. That’s my point. Improvements in the workplace are great. I just wanted people to be aware that this change is not applicable for a big part of the workforce. I was trying to make sure people saw that their neighbors bowl would still be empty so to say.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
