1505
People who work from home all the time ‘cut emissions by 54%’ against those in office
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
1505 points (98.8% liked)
News
23014 readers
7 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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?
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.
See, and how would you do that if everyone is at home? So office is clearly superior and totally necessary >!/s!<
LOL - game, set, match.
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
Modern accounting techniques are amazing and super effective, barely unchanged since their codification in the 1490s by an Italian scholar named Luca Pacioli. The biggest weakness of accounting though is its inability to capture externalities. How does one company record the cost of their employees commute? How do you even begin to calculate that? How do you measure the cost of extra leukemia cases in a town ten years after a train derails nearby? How do you record that in your books? How do you calculate and record the distress these huge noisy shipping vessels cause whales? It's just so subjective and impractical.
In the city of Seattle, for example, every year, companies over a certain number of employees are required to participate in an annual transportation survey. The employees are surveyed. The questions ask how far the employee commutes to work, how long it takes, and by what method (private vehicle, car pool, public transportation), how many days a year they work from home, or take off, etc. The effort is to assess the impact on environment, parking infrastructure, public transportation, roads, etc.
Obviously, there isn't a 100% response rate so the data is extrapolated from the responses to the total number of employees employeed at that site (probably why they only poll companies of a minimum size and larger).
If they wanted to implement something like this in seattle, then the next step would be to take the data they already have and start sending those companies a new bill for a new annual tax based on the assessment.
Lots of taxes work off of an estimated assessment rather than having to account for every nut snd bolt of the thing (property taxes, for example).
So how do you do it? That's how you do it. This isn't rocket science, and you don't need to invent new accounting methods or worry about the accounting-sky falling to accomplish it.
Regarding commuting specifically I meant how do you determine the cost of each extra pound of co2 in the atmosphere. It's inherently incalculable because the effects of climate change are insanely complex. That's my point about externalities. How do you price the value of standing in an open meadow at dusk?
The point of my earlier comment was that the inability to account down to the last carbon atom isn't a valid reason not to start with more generalized high-level estimates and work just from those until/if a better way of doing it is either becomes available or becomes a necessity.
It's like arguing that we might as well not accept the existence of circles because we can't calculate to the final digit of pi....when really, for most things, we don't need that level of precision to still do a good job discussing roundness.
Pi can be rounded. It's infamously difficult to compute externalities in any meaningful sense. Even more difficult to implement a fair and actionable policy for it. You can google "accounting for externalities" and read a bunch f articles and academic papers on the subject, which has been debated for decades.
Beyond fines for dumping chemicals in rivers, and carbon taxes, etc, stronger EPA, etc, I don't really have any good ideas for codifying a real actual plan into law. Probably easier to raise corporate tax rates up a few points from 21% to whatever and use it to fund green energy and cleanup projects etc, rather than change accounting methods to try and capture the costs that way.
Hmm
Oh so you mean it's actually dog shit then, if you can't properly look at external risks outside the clearly defined formulas and can game said fomulas to cook books to one's liking.
You act like these are difficult tasks in the modern era. Commute is pretty simple, what type of vehicle, what are its maintenance costs at certain mileages, what are the crash statistics, etc. Once you have a general fomula you can add an increased payout to cover ireegular externalities to properly hedge against the edge cases. Same shit for the others. It's not subjective and impractical, it's just not the going to be perfectly effiecnt as you need to create a bigger financial bubble to account for edge cases. The problem is hyper fixation on extracting the most captial possible from a business. Stop trying to be the most clean cut business and focus on aiding your communities, working to better infrastructure and stop interference with local governments for tax benefits. Then progressive changes can be beneficial to both and reduce external unmitigated risks as we have a more nuanced model to work with.
That rant is unhinged, you're not playing with a full deck. Not gonna engage with you if you can't have a reasonable conversation in good faith.
Lol, call out your bullshit and you have nothing but a reductionist argument, but sure bud I'm the one not playing with a full deck. Go lick some more boots if you can't engage in constructive conversation.
Come back when you can codify your point into something that can actually be recorded on a balance sheet and P&L. Until then it's not even wrong, it's just..word salad..
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.
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.
I still don't understand how ~~bribery~~ lobbying is legal.
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...
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.
If we’re talking about some sort of tax on employers based on the commute of their employees, it’s going to disproportionately affect the poor anyway. If you tax employers though you’re incentivizing further control of their employees lives.
Yes, higher gas prices would increase the cost of shipping and therefore most products, but there’s no world in which we hold corporations accountable for their externalities and consumer goods remain as cheap as they are.