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.
Modern accounting techniques are amazing and super effective,
Hmm
The biggest weakness of accounting though is its inability to capture externalities
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.
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.
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
briberylobbying 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.
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.
Took me an hour to get to work, so now I get an extra hour and a half in bed as I get up at 9:30 for my 9am start.
Wait… so you’re 30min late for work everyday because you sleep in?
If you didn’t think this was the case in most offices I have a movie to show you
Well if you think like this, it’s no wonder they are ending WFH.
Not everyone can be a happy little robot in a suit. Some of us are normal people.
Yep. I have to go into the office 3 days a week. I get up for my first meeting, do some light work, then shower and get ready during my working hours, and leave on the bus. I’ll get there around 11-11:30 usually. Then I’ll leave to be home around 5. I’m not wasting my time on this bullshit. Working from home is way more relaxing and efficient.
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.
Yeah. Having a laptop and extra monitor on all day at home probably uses less electricity than the fridge.
Ostensibly you could turn down your thermostat during the day to save money, but almost no one does this
Not if you have pets at home
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Study in US
The difference is likely less in developed countries with functional public transport
And if they drive, they drive less ridiculous cars. The fact that the F150 is the most sold car in the US is just mind boggling.
Is it bad that I’m seeing more and more of those huge ass trucks here in Australia?
Those trucks make no sense to me.
Yeah. We gotta tax the shit out of them. By the kilo.
Yes, it’s bad.
Bloody GM’s fault for killing Holden and taking away our beautiful utes
Yes, as an American that prefers to drive small cars I feel like driving is no longer safe. I can’t see past any of the tank sized cars that make up 75% of the vehicles on the road and I know, from experience, how destructive getting hit by one of those vehicles can be. I’m down to driving 1-2 times per month and I’m terrified every time I get behind the wheel. The only reason I keep a car is to visit family that lives about 130km away since the Republicans in my area have killed every train project between my hometown and my parents’ town.
Is it really a proper car if it does more than four miles to the gallon?
Wait is this really true?? Why do so mamy people feel the need to buy trucks?
The sad thing is, I really want a truck for transporting stuff for hobbyist gardening and woodworking, but it’s so hard to find a truck that isn’t 20ft tall with more cabin than bed space. Two door trucks are getting harder to find.
Because they might need to move a large piece of furniture someday…
Wouldn’t they just hire a truck if they ever need that? I mean that’s what we did, we moved twice in the last 20 years and one involved moving over 300 miles away to another city
No way, that just makes too much sense
I mean there are companies that do this for you, carry everything over (from the front of house to placing them inside as well, like couches and tv and everything) so you don’t do anything really except paying them money (and ask for refund if they broke something 😡). Like I guess it’s called forwarding
It’s primarily a cultural thing
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.
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.
That’s great when it’s your choice. The issue is when bosses don’t give people the choice.
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.
for literally no cost too. What exactly are companies losing with WFH? Literaly nothing.
Control. And that is a scary thing to lose if you’re a bad manager.
Then hire better managers
Idk how legit it is, but I have read that companies got deals on taxes and such for building their office in the specific city/state and that’s with the expectation that the workers will either live in the city or will be from the city, in turn creating tax income from those workers buying things in the city. Basically because wfh employees also move to cheaper cities the companies are losing their benefits
The money they spend on the building and maintenance.
They don’t lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.
The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds. The company has a building that they have to pay upkeep on, while also having the IT costs of managing a off-site VPN.
Twenty year leases are hard to get out of.
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing against WFH, just providing possible reasons big companies are against it.
They don’t lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.
That only applies to companies that rent. If they own the building, then an empty office becomes a waste
The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds.
I disagree on that one. Not everyone wants to WFH or do it full time. Also if they meet with outside persons regularly, like customers and want to do it in person, having an office is useful. Obviously this does not apply to all companies, but it’s wrong to say that the hybrid system is the worst.
And how would they not lose that if people were working in the office?
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
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.
I find I’m less angry too. A lot of bad drivers out there. Lol
Ah yah…lots of stupid drivers here just piss me off…lots of traffic compared to last year too…
I have a theory about the increase of bad drivers that seems to have happened after the pandemic. So most of the higher paid desk jobs where usually people are more intelligent mostly went to WFH. So there are less intelligent people on the road than there used to be. So now it’s all idiots in cars taking free reign of the roads. Less traffic causes the idiots to be able to more freely speed and run reds. I know since working from home I drive about 90% less and when I do I am scared for my life.
As someone who works a desk job, no, there are lots of idiots in those jobs, and lots of smart people digging ditches.
Just being stuck in traffic when you could be getting shit done is what gets me. Time/money/carbon emissions… just wasteful in every way
I’m lucky enough to have multiple routes to my office.
During the times that taking the back roads is dramatically slower, I’ll go on the interstate. Holy hell my stress and anger levels rocket when doing that.
I also eat at home a lot more which has a far lower ecological cost than going out to eat
Yeah, we make large portions when we cook so I can freeze the leftovers for lunch.
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.
The office is a total waste. A complete, total loss. Fuck that shit.
I bike to work and turn off my AC/heat and power strips at home before I ride off. I wish everyone could experience how easy this is, I fucking hate driving through traffic.
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
Damn, appreciate the context. Sounds like you’re in a Texas city? I didn’t know housing costs were that bad there.
I can’t say exactly where I’m at for fear of doxing myself, but the general Austin area has gotten very expensive, and there are some small cities in the area that are among the most expensive in the country.
AUSTIN! WE GOT AN AUSTIN GUY HERE!
See, nobody cares :p
Please tell me you were hearing George Costanza’s voice in your head as you wrote that…
You mean Wayne Knight right?
Yes, they do.
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.
Are there no showers in your office? I am guessing not.
Nope not even close. I hear some buildings have gyms downstairs so I suppose I could keep work clothes in the locker and ride to and from in street clothes. I’m in the job market so I’ll look into it.
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.
Yeah man, I completely understand. I’m very very lucky to live in a cooler climate, only a few miles from my work, with somewhat decent bike lanes (although a joke compared to anywhere in Europe), and I don’t sweat too bad lol.
I try to convince a lot of my friends to give bicycling a try but I totally understand if they’re afraid of traffic. It’s fucked up that we’re forced to ride completely unseparated from cars and giant fucking trucks swinging all over the road.
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.
Just being able to cook at home has reduced our food waste for sure.
I know it has reduced my food spending and leftover utilization.
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.
If it’s a nice walk I’m game. I’m continually impressed with how walkable many cities are (except mine of course). If it’s ball sweating hot, walking through endless sprawl, dodging cars, on noisy highways, forget it.
I actually started on the day when it was 40°C / 104°F in humidex. Significantly less than favorable conditions. But I figured, if I can do that, I can do any other day. I do have the entire path with sidewalks though. And even a little bit of a park I can cut through.
That’s quite a challenge 45 minutes in hot weather. Specially if there is not shade
You’re hardcore. I just can’t do that though. I’m in good shape but I sweat a LOT and can’t show up at the office drenched. It would ruin my day.
Add to that a podcast, an e-reader or just jogging to work and those 90 min will be pure investment. Well done.
I listen to either music or audiobook. Yeah, time goes fast.
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.
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”.
I have heard this but do we have any evidence?
It makes sense, but gotta be able to prove it.
