top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 227 points 3 years ago (23 children)

Corporations should be held responsible for the emissions caused by their employee's commuting.

This would really change the discussion about return to office.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 97 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (19 replies)
    [–] 104 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 86 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    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.).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 22 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago

    I once worked in a high-rise office that would get uncomfortably cold (for me) in winter. I thought they were just being stingy with the heating, until I went into the office on a Saturday and found it was pleasantly warm. Turns out all the computers were keeping the office nice and toasty, and they were actively cooling the place during the winter to keep things at a "business temperature."

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 60 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 60 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Study in US

    The difference is likely less in developed countries with functional public transport

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 3 years ago*

    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

  • source
  • [–] 56 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 50 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    That much is obvious. And for us commuters of public transport, it is such a relief to notice the traffic is not as bad and heavy as they used to be pre-pandemic, due to people now working from home.

    With many businesses now wanting workers to return working on site, I think this shows the true colours of capital-owning class in relation to climate-change. Despite all the shifting of responsibility to make consumers monitor carbon-footprint, and corporate marketing of supposedly environmentally-friendly products, if CEOs and billionaires truly care about the environment, they would not even demand workers to return working on-site 5 days a week. Green-washing indeed.

    Edit:clarity

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago

    The most amazing part of the pandemic was during the peak of all the lockdowns when nature came roaring back within weeks. My gf and I took a walk around a closed college campus nearby and we saw at least ten different kinds of creatures roaming around without a care in the world. Deer, rabbits, turtles, you name it.

    Personally I prefer office but I totally get it, and do plenty of wfh when appropriate. The business world is still transitioning to WFH/hybrid/full office models so hopefully we'll reach an equilibrium soon.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 40 points 3 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    [–] 34 points 3 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Just being able to cook at home has reduced our food waste for sure.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [+] 31 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    I would ride to work but there's so many reasons not to. I've tried before, and almost died several times because of asshole drivers and half asleep morons still putting on makeup or drinking coffee or whatever. The bike lanes are a joke and people treat them like passing lanes to get one car length ahead in stop-go traffic. I've ridden with pants on once and got a giant oil stain on my leg from the bike chain. Even if none of that happens, it's extremely hot and humid where i live almost year round, and I wear business casual so I'm drenched in sweat before too long. I wish I could make it work but..no..and of course there's no reliable public transportation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 28 points 3 years ago

    I have solar panels on my roof. My employer's building does not.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 20 points 3 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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”.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 3 years ago* (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 15 points 3 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago

    Non-existent public transport much?

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    People who live in caves all the time cut emissions by 95%.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›