People who work from home all the time ‘cut emissions by 54%’ against those in office
People who work from home all the time ‘cut emissions by 54%’ against those in office
And time. Instead of commuting, I'll mow my grass, water the plants, do some chores, etc.
My wife commutes and can't work remotely. I try to consider that and do more chores to bring balance.
That extra 20-30 minutes in the morning and 40 minutes in the PM is priceless, actually.
I agree.
Time truly is our greatest resource as people and getting some back instead of driving is fantastic.
Yep. I have to go into the office 3 days a week. I get up for my first meeting, do some light work, then shower and get ready during my working hours, and leave on the bus. I’ll get there around 11-11:30 usually. Then I’ll leave to be home around 5. I’m not wasting my time on this bullshit. Working from home is way more relaxing and efficient.
One criticism of WFH is that you'll have increased energy bills since you're home all day. Aside from the obvious reasons that's wrong, this provides hard data showing that WFH is better for the environment in addition to being better for literally everyone except commercial real estate investors.
I would assume it takes far more energy on heating/cooling/ventilation systems for large buildings in general than it does for a series of small buildings that have classic ventilation systems called "windows that open to let in fresh air." Something that is pretty rare in office buildings.
EDIT: Furthermore, large buildings usually have automated systems that keep it roughly the same temperature throughout the whole building while individuals in their own homes might try to keep heating/cooling bills low by choosing to only heat/cool specific rooms that they're actually physically using. I know I certainly do this at home, no sense in doing temp control in a room no one is occupying (other than making sure it's above freezing for pipes, etc.).
Study in US
The difference is likely less in developed countries with functional public transport
And if they drive, they drive less ridiculous cars. The fact that the F150 is the most sold car in the US is just mind boggling.
WFH allowance should be mandated -- anyone that wants it for a job where it's possible must be allowed it. it's such a dramatic quality of life difference.
I'm privileged to have a boss not caring where we work from, but i prefer to come into the office once in a while because of my social needs. It's depressing to stay home day after day, but it's more productive.
That's great when it's your choice. The issue is when bosses don't give people the choice.
My boss allows people to WFH officially, but also establishes several small office spaces so people can come to hang out if they feel lonely, or want to get to know their colleagues more. I think this is the best of both world.
for literally no cost too. What exactly are companies losing with WFH? Literaly nothing.
Control. And that is a scary thing to lose if you're a bad manager.
Idk how legit it is, but I have read that companies got deals on taxes and such for building their office in the specific city/state and that's with the expectation that the workers will either live in the city or will be from the city, in turn creating tax income from those workers buying things in the city. Basically because wfh employees also move to cheaper cities the companies are losing their benefits
The money they spend on the building and maintenance.
As a full time remote worker, I can confirm, I'm driving so much less. My commute prior to the pandemic was 18 minutes (12.7 miles one way), so 25 miles round trip with 36 minutes spent driving each work day. My commute was short compared to a lot of other people I worked with who'd drive 45 minutes one way, some 1 hour one way! That's a lot of driving that can be cut out if the role allows for remote work.
I find I'm less angry too. A lot of bad drivers out there. Lol
I have a theory about the increase of bad drivers that seems to have happened after the pandemic. So most of the higher paid desk jobs where usually people are more intelligent mostly went to WFH. So there are less intelligent people on the road than there used to be. So now it's all idiots in cars taking free reign of the roads. Less traffic causes the idiots to be able to more freely speed and run reds. I know since working from home I drive about 90% less and when I do I am scared for my life.
Ah yah...lots of stupid drivers here just piss me off...lots of traffic compared to last year too...
Just being stuck in traffic when you could be getting shit done is what gets me. Time/money/carbon emissions... just wasteful in every way
I'm lucky enough to have multiple routes to my office.
During the times that taking the back roads is dramatically slower, I'll go on the interstate. Holy hell my stress and anger levels rocket when doing that.
It's a good idea to change your oil every 12 months even if you don't reach the mileage for the maintenance interval. The heat cycles from the engine creates condensation in the engine and the water reacts with the petroleum in the oil and produces some not nice stuff. I haven't been reaching my interval but my car will still beep at me 30 days before the last oil monitor reset.
I changed mine before a ~1500 mile road trip summer of 2022. Flipped to the percentage (Honda) the other day just out of curiosity and it's still at 60%, lol. I put so few miles on that thing it's crazy. I sometimes go a few miles to lunch. Outside that we use it for hardware store runs here and there. I guess I did drive it to a wedding a couple weeks back but that was because I knew we would be parking in a farm field and it's my only 4 wheel drive vehicle. Probably should change the oil before winter just for good measure.
i just worked out im saving 2160 litres of fuel a year by not driving every day
people who burn less gas and consume less resources burn less gas and consume less resources, more news at 11.
but it's nice they're pinning numbers onto the amounts
Um... no fucking shit.
Transporting millions of people dozens of miles twice a day OF COURSE has resource costs, in carbon and pollution and energy consumption. This shouldn't be rocket science. Sadly it is for people who are afraid of change.
It also saves the workers money (as they don't have to pay for fuel or public transit), it saves the company money (as they don't have to pay for office space), it saves the environment (as you don't have pollution from commutes), it reduces traffic (as you don't have as many commuters at rush hour), and it's generally good for just about everybody except commercial real estate developers renting out overpriced office buildings and Starbucks that's paying absurd rents to be in the bottom floor of those overpriced office buildings. And of course middle managers who think that hounding their employees in person somehow accomplishes something.
The blatant disregard there will be of this research, which will be the case, tells you everything about the viability of trusting the captains of industry to navigate us away from climate collapse
I went from commuting close to 2 hours daily, with much of that spent stuck in traffic, to working fully remotely. I'd have to get gas every week. Now I go weeks at a time before needing to get gas.
Even better, I used to work for a chemical company part of one of the big oil and gas corporations. Now I work for a green energy company. It cracks me up just how different the two situations are.
I wish I could do that again like I did in college.
But we just had 2 months straight with temperatures over 100 degrees where I'm at, and affordable housing is 30 miles from where people work. So going to work would take forever, be miserable, and require a shower upon arrival.
I just got offered an awesome new job that pays half again more than I make now, but it's further into the city, and a 300sft studio apartment within 15 miles of my new job is $2,500/month.
The cheapest home in the City is 1.8 million dollars, and the median price is 2.6 million.
Paying the car note, gas, and rent on 1200sft where I'm at saves me a thousand dollars a month versus moving closer, AND the new job actually pays a fuel stipend because literally nobody at the company lives within a half-hour drive of the office, so it's even better to live where it's cheaper.
We'd move the office, but we're municipal employees and It's hard to justify moving City Hall out of the city
Just being able to cook at home has reduced our food waste for sure.
I know it has reduced my food spending and leftover utilization.
I've actually started... walking to work. It takes me like 45min. So it's not a short walk, though it's a very short car commute. But the world is so different now that I'm walking. Having lived in car dependency vs walking is so different. And it's healthy for you too. More people should try it, if i's possible.
Its not the destination, it's the journey
Add to that a podcast, an e-reader or just jogging to work and those 90 min will be pure investment. Well done.
I listen to either music or audiobook. Yeah, time goes fast.
I have solar panels on my roof. My employer's building does not.
Well, I've traded burning fuel for burning internet and electricity at my home. My electricity at home is mostly solar (from my roof) and hydro from the grid (I live in Washington State).
Working from home spares me ~20 uncompensated transit hours a week, so the emissions difference (whether I use transit or drive) is substantial and so is the cost savings (in fuel and parking). FWIW, my employer will pay for my transit fares (but not fuel or parking) and that's nice and all, but I'm squeamish about transit during flu/covid season because of all those coughing people going in to jobs that don't encourage them to stay home while sick.
I'm able to work more hours when I do it from home because I'm not constrained by transit schedules/catching the last train out of town, and that way I still come out ahead in terms of having time with my kids, and I have time to take grocery shopping and meal planning and prep off of my wife's plate.
It's better this way, not just in terms of cost and environmental impact and quality of life, but productivity-wise.
There are so many CEOs putting their own private portfolio over the companies they supposedly run having a high staff attrition, and yet “they command such big salaries because they take on so much risk”.
I have heard this but do we have any evidence?
It makes sense, but gotta be able to prove it.
In the two weeks since my work mandated three days in the office I've spent $150 on gas. Awesome.
Granted part of that reason is the car broke down and I had to drive the truck.
Non-existent public transport much?
If the American owner class has taught Americans paying any attention the last century anything about how they operate, it's "Fuck the commons/planet/species/future, burn it all if it makes me a dollar slightly faster!"
Profit in this case being all the corporate park land they own. Propagating human misery at every step for nothing more than to run up their capital ego score, that doesn't even effect their living conditions at all.
Good thing they don't consider their victims, people without significant net worth, human.
Does it even make them any money if someone is inside the building? It seems more like justifying a purchase that didn't pan out.
It's about holding value for them. Small/medium businesses paying rent in perpetuity to the corporate owners of business complexes. Yes, they'd rather others suffer and the planet burn if it means their capital investment is reaping dividends.
That's why we're on the brink, it's not like man made climate change hasn't been known for half a century. Our owners only care about their capital scores. They destroyed our republic and captured our government that was supposed to regulate/check them for us to increase their capital scores. They're destroying the climate and hobbling the species for generations to increase their capital scores.
Why does everyone act surprised when our owner class acts like sociopaths? Thats why they're in our owner class to begin with. Welcome to America, where practiced sociopathy gets you a corner office, and practiced prosocial vocations and empathy gets you a cardboard box on the sidewalk.
Your employer isn't earning money by having you in the office. But they are losing money on the lease or mortgage for the property if you're not in the office.
No, but it makes the cities where those buildings reside a boatload of tax revenue. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of the "return to office" propaganda was coming from local governments freaking out about the abrupt downturn in tax income from commuters.
Corporate real estate is over represented in investments, so the loss is through the stock market, not the company directly
Edit: I actually don’t know if that’s true, but it’s the theory
right but the issue is not environment pollution , its the real estate. They all are empty so fuck the environment and bring yo 9-5 ass to office.
i also think theres an inherent bias that 'leaders' tend to be more extroverted and see more value in people 'being together', and to an extent, at least in my observed experience, are unwilling to acknowledge the fact its not the same for everyone
It is downright malicious in many cases, though. A lot of times, business owners will be renting the property their office is based out of, and that property ends up being owned by a family member or friend (or they themselves) who then get to bill the company for quite a sum without that being considered payroll. If they lose the office, they lose money, and that's all they care about.
'Leaders' also tend to own an outsize amount of real estate as well.
That's probably primarily a consequence of bad zoning and transportation policy in the U.S - higher density zoning and public transportation/cycling infrastructure would address this more than enough.
Slapping a WFH-band aid on top of this mess doesn't really address the root cause. That's not to say you shouldn't be able to WFH - work whichever way suits you best - but I don't find this particular argument compelling as for a reason to advocate for WFH.
100% agree, we (the US) truly need better city layouts and public transportation. However, it's nice to see more arguments that are "pro WFH" that aren't just talking about the employees themselves or productivity. Not that it's likely to change the path of management but it's still welcome.
Ugh I really want to out the company I work at. Of all companies we should be going and advocating for remote.
But we aren't. 'Because being with each is SO valuable'.
$100 says you're company is either stuck in a lease with their building or owns it outright...so glad I work for a WFH company that started that way 20 years ago and never went to having offices.
Mi company offer 50% WFH because there is not enough space in the office for everyone
Lol no I wish!
I swear to god we just had all our leases expire and chose to renew ALL OF THEMMMM.
In fact, for the main office we've just signed a new multi-year lease in a new building. It's smaller tho. Renovations currently in progress.
But no raises. Times are too tough.
(Also no to ownership. All the offices are leased.)
$100 says you’re company is either stuck in a lease with their building or owns it outright
But why exactly would that mean "no WFH"?
Stuck in a lease? Its not like if people WFH or W in the office the lease would decrease. On the contrary. less people means less bills to pay. (Same for owning the building), in this case just rent it for something else.
I’m not sure the people making the decisions about work from home have any concern for its effect on carbon emissions.
The only thing about the 54% number, for me, is that it's not higher.
This shouldn't be news to anyone.
I am like infinitive times more productive when working from home. I am voluntarely coming to office usually 1 day per week and oh boy I don't work in office. Vaping, walking around, chatting, meetings, vaping, snacks, walk outside.
I think I will become pro-office at some point lol. 😅
Yep, and if you have management that still values presenteeism over actual work (because it massages their ego), the 20%-40% reduction in productivity while AT work will go unnoticed, most likely.
Well, meat eating should be cut way down; ideally to zero. But we'll always have this disparity where some people will live better. It doesn't mean the answer is to do nothing at all about systemic issues like meat.
Yeah, but they deprive their bosses of the opportunity to walk into the building and have everybody who meets them say "Good Morning Mr. Analwart Sir" before shutting their office door and playing Minesweeper for 3 hours
Interesting. When the impact of individuals on the environment is discussed, a huge number of users here can't stress enough how the effort of the people doesn't matter and is irrelevant.
Stop eating meat and dairy, not buying plastic wrapped stuff, using public transport,... That's all of no use and no one should even dare to mention it since this is all just propaganda by big corporations.
Unless it's about home office. Suddenly there is great agreement that we have to do home office to save the climate! It almost seems like for a lot of people it's not so much about protecting the climate, but about not taking up responsibility when it's uncomfortable.
If your job really can be done as well 100% from home (as many people insist) then you’ve got a problem - because that means it can be done as well 100% from home by some onefrom India or similar and they’ll be cheaper. Be careful what you wish for.
I’m of the view that actually this isn’t true for a lot of jobs, particular anything that involves interacting in a team, just people wish it was.
It's not the job tho, it's the competence and calibre of the individual.
I spend far too much time unpicking poor workmanship from outsourced colleagues.
You pay peanuts, you get what?
My job can be done 100% remotely. While in office I am "remote", because team is displaced among different cities.
If an Indian can do better than me, it's fair, they can take it. I am not racist. If my company outsource my job in India to save money, I am happy I won't be working there anymore. A company that value a quick, short term saving over its employees is a bad company. They'd have anyway to re insource my position in 5 years anyway, we know how this things work
It’s not outsourcing if they’re employed by your company, just remote working - they’ll be the employee and the company can care for them as much. They’ll just be more productive because of lower cost of living where they happen to live. If your job can be done fine 100% why would they ever change it back? Remote working isn’t the same as insource/outsource
The main causes of remote workers’ reduced emissions were less office energy use, as well as fewer emissions from a daily commute.
I mean yeah, that makes sense,
But I wonder what the numbers are when it comes to everyone keeping their homes heated/cooled all day compared to communal heating/cooling of a building.
People working at home will increase their personal emissions to keep their home office heated/cooled, and I suspect you get more bang for your energy buck if they are all in one spot instead of spread out into multiple buildings.
So sure.. less office energy use, but increased home energy use...
I wonder how the study calculated that or even bothered...
I don't know about your home and office, but every office I worked in had atrocious heating and cooling. People wear hoodies inside all summer because the AC is set too low.
definitely a perk working from home, you decide temperature/sound/etc.
But I'm talking from an overall society energy use perspective.
I'm curious if the energy efficiency of having people in one building compares to the energy efficiency of them spread out.
It will greatly vary, as some are already in apartment buildings sharing that efficiency, some are in better eff rated homes, some are in worse eff rated homes.
Not sure this study can accurately claim 54% .. even if they said +-10%, it's still probably way out to lunch.
In the US, people typically drive cars to work. These cars are 3000-6000 pounds that move 20-30 miles by burning oiil at 25% efficiency while also polluting the air with brake and tire dust.
I wonder what the numbers are when it comes to everyone keeping their homes heated/cooled all day compared to communal heating/cooling of a building.
District heating is popular in parts of the world. We could lower emissions caused by commuting and lower emissions due to shitty tiny furnaces.
District heating (and cooling) would also alleviate the problem of people continuing to run ancient furnaces and air conditioners that are simply too old and worn down to be effective
That's why I can sleep easy at night even though my house is heated by coal.
Because you are selfish? I mean good on you.
Ignoring all societal implications of burning coal, heating your own home by burning coal is super bad for your lungs!
Yeah, but you should hear the cool sound it makes when they deliver a truckload of coal down the chute.
mild shock
Corporations should be held responsible for the emissions caused by their employee's commuting.
This would really change the discussion about return to office.
Lol they spent decades doing the opposite, generating the vast majority of emissions with big manufacturing and big livestock, and then successfully shifting blame on poor peasants claiming the planet is heating because they're not sorting their recycling well enough.
Yes and also by telling us to buy expensive electric cars because the environment needs us to.
Companies should be on the hook for all negative externalities. Make them internalities and watch how quick things change
But then how would they exploit the poors?
Yes, but we need to see everyone in person!!!11111 There are intangible benefits and impromptu synergies, etc... /s
Bro, I literally want to punch everyone in the office.
In Nottingham, UK they made it so companies have to pay for every parking space per year over a certain amount, and that money gets invested in public transport. Over time congestion has grown much slower in Nottingham than similar cities, I'm amazed that more cities don't do the same.
This is the way
It seems simpler to just tax gas at a more rational rate.
Simpler perhaps, but not really better. High gas prices hurt the poor disproportionately because it's a larger part of their income, they don't have as much control over WFH policies or their locations for reducing commutes, and they can't typically afford to upgrade to fuel efficient vehicles. Plus since almost everything is transported by truck, high gas prices make the cost of everything else go up too.
I think part of the labor shortage is from people who did the math and quit after realising that they weren't actually earning anything after subtracting transportation costs.
Well, for positions that could be moved to WFH perhaps. To others that would be unfair because companies would descriminate by distance to the office.
So you also make sure location discrimination is illegal as well. There can be multiple parts to the legislation.
I've seen that already, at least pre-Covid and in the U.S. Even though I'm pretty sure that asking that during an interview is illegal, I've been on post-interview sessions where someone inevitably says "yeah, but this candidate lives nearly an hour away, while this other candidate lives 15 minutes away..." so they found out somehow.
As they should...