• krayj@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    126
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

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

    This would really change the discussion about return to office.

    • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      11 months ago

      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 for not sorting their recycling.

      • Chivera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes and also by telling us to buy expensive electric cars because the environment needs us to.

        • Duxon@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          How about buying electric instead of combustion while trying to not buy a new car unless it’s really necessary? That should reduce emissions, shouldn’t it?

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      11 months ago

      Companies should be on the hook for all negative externalities. Make them internalities and watch how quick things change

    • ntzm [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months 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.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yes, but we need to see everyone in person!!!11111 There are intangible benefits and impromptu synergies, etc… /s

      • krakenx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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.

    • witx@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

        • OftenWrong@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Before we do anything else we should be working to end lobbying and put every single lobbyist leech on society out of a job. Otherwise this is all pipe dreams. They’ll just lobby it away.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.