politics

Yes, but have you considered the long-term contract the company has signed with the land leasing agency and the payouts to the construction company that new building and the architecture firm that designed it? Because the company put a lot of work into all of that and you seem ungrateful. Now please ignore the smog warning, you're an essential worker, and come into the office you definitely need to be in where you will definitely be more productive. Remember, there's a pizza party on Friday for all employees. You can donate to the pizza party fund straight from your paycheck!

True story:

I started working from home following a heart attack and open heart surgery at the end of 2018. 2019 was one complication after another, but I was finally cleared to return to the office in 2020 - just in time to go back home for covid.

This month is 5 years WFH. I drive 1 day a week for groceries, prescriptions, and comic books.

After doing it for 3 years, I had saved enough money to buy a house. Got that sweet 3.25% interest rate too!

So, yeah, bad for commercial real estate, for me it was pretty good for residential real estate. ;)

WFH not only cuts emissions. It also helps the worker spend way less money that would otherwise be spent in food, gas and other. It also saves a lot of time commuting from home to work.

As long as there is a life - work balance, and there is no effect in mental health, WFH is a blessing in more than one ways

awesome stuff! lets plant some beautiful nature all over these unnecessary concrete jungles and house the unhoused! Solarpunk is the future!

In other news, water is wet.

Not my personal emissions. Now they are released more freely.

Since October, I must do 3.5h of commute per day to manage/operate systems 300km away from the office.

Let's be honest here, it's managers who are forcing employees to commute into the office for no reason that are raising emissions.

Is that all? I would think it would be more.

70% of all microplastics in the ocean are probably from tire dust. This would help reduce that.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemicals

This should be obvious.

Make people travel sometimes dozens of miles twice a day every day, and of course there's a carbon cost to that. Not to mention a health cost to the worker (less sleep for commute time), a mental health cost (less personal/family time), and an overall better deal for the employee (less money spent on transportation related expenses).
Plus there's other benefits that are considered 'bad for the economy' but are usually good for the worker- for example easier to make breakfast and coffee at home instead of getting Starbucks.

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!

does this mean i can eat still eat the cows

My work wants us to work at the office 4x as much next year.