Question for OP, can you get me the source for that statistic? I want to post this on work slack with a source
The scientists in the article point out that the big reduction is only for full time work from home, and that the net effect might not be a negative reduction.
The main causes of remote workers’ reduced emissions were less office energy use, as well as fewer emissions from a daily commute.
A concern is that if everybody is staying in a less energy efficient house than an office building then it might be an overall increase in energy use.
I’m of the opinion that the mental health benefits outweigh all of this though.
Despite that the original comic source is ten years ago or so. I like it that people still use this meme.
If I remember this study right, they found “up to” 54%, under ideal, uncommon conditions.
The authors mentioned in the same study home office can cause even higher emissions than working in the office.
If true, this is just another sloppy meme journalism like the infamous “71% of all emissions caused by 100 companies”, where they linked but misquoted the study in a similar way.
Yes, same study. I first saw it here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/working-remotely-can-more-than-halve-an-office-employees-carbon-footprint/
Study here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2304099120
All quotes from the study:
We find that, in the United States, switching from working onsite to working from home can reduce up to 58% of work’s carbon footprint, and the impacts of IT usage are negligible, while office energy use and noncommute travel impacts are important. Our study also suggests that achieving the environmental benefits of remote work requires proper setup of people’s lifestyle, including their vehicle choice, travel behavior, and the configuration of home and work environment.
Roughly speaking, if you live greener at home than your office is, home office can cause less emissions. If your office is greener than you are, working in office can cause less emissions.
So if you use more energy at home (e.g. by running A/C just for you), it would have been better for the environment if you went to the office.
Also the study says “up to 58%”. How the heck does The Guardian manage to quote that as straight “54%”?? Was that the same journalist who butchered “71% by 100”? These numbers were wrong and out of context as well.
So the most important metric would be average reduction. But I image it would still be substantial with no commute and much less air conditioned volume.
Definitely up prices is the right corporate answer. For everything.
You could also change his text to: use normal fonts
As much as I would love to work from home. I get distracted easily while at home. I’d prefer to go into the office.
Although it looked at first glance as it was the poor guy falling off the window, it was actually the manager. It’s a Russian comic.
Nah dude zoom into the falling guy. He has a white shirt on. Thats only wore by the dude with the third suggestion.
Nono, he‘s one of those https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_deaths_of_Russian_businesspeople_(2022–2023)
I assume it’s a Tiktok challenge over there.
