People who work from home all the time ‘cut emissions by 54%’ against those in office::Study in US shows one day a week of remote working cuts emissions by just 2% but two or four days lowers them by up to 29%

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Commuting by car is really, really expensive – to the worker (in fuel, time, and stress), to the polity (in road maintenance, traffic collisions, etc.), and to the environment as well.

    Most of the costs are borne directly by the worker without compensation. Although a worker is required to commute to work, commute time is not considered part of an hourly worker’s working hours, nor is it considered a tax-deductible business travel expense.

    • PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Now I pay for the electricity and my home office space and it is still significantly cheaper than just what I used to pay in gas. Screw going back in to the office.

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

        The fraction of my electric and internet bill consumed by remote work is negligible.

    • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      Ironically I think that would be a great approach - give tax breaks to businesses that have fully remote workers. It would save the environment, reduce traffic, reduce the cost of renting an apartment in downtown areas, bolster suburban and rural towns, and provide a higher quality of life to the middle class. The only way to get businesses onnoard willingly is by offering a monetary incentive.

    • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yup. Honestly if the world wasn’t run for the money makers.

      We could really engineer it to work for the betterment of the planet and us.

      We could optimize our system so we don’t waste so much and save ourselves money. Money which in turn is our life span.

      If only

  • eee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    But how can real estate companies make money off peasants if the peasants don’t suffer needlessly?

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

    Talked to a former coworker who goes into the office now a couple of times a week to sit in a shitty open office workspace to go on teams to ‘interact’ with his colleagues. It’s just fucking stupid. Also the company sells remote work enablement tools.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    People who work remotely all the time produce less than half the greenhouse gas emissions of office workers, according to a new study.

    Employees in the US who worked from home all the time were predicted to reduce their emissions by 54%, compared with workers in an office, the study found.

    Wider emissions reducing benefits of working from home include the easing of vehicle congestion during rush hour in commuting areas, which is likely to improve fuel economy.

    According to the study, this could result in longer commuting distances for hybrid workers and a greater carbon footprint due to the increased use of private vehicles.

    The authors said: “While remote work shows potential in reducing carbon footprint, careful consideration of commuting patterns, building energy consumption, vehicle ownership, and non-commute-related travel is essential to fully realise its environmental benefits.”

    While the findings do not apply to workers in many sectors – a bus driver, for example, cannot work from home – it provides pointers on how office-based employers can reduce company emissions.


    The original article contains 591 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!