Hacker News Reader

Comment by sharemywin | Hacker News Reader

Wonder how much WFH could help. Seems like during covid demand went way down.

It helped on reducing traffic, spending more time with family, favouring local shops... Why we went back still is a mystery for me. Even if it was "working from a coworking space" or anything that was not the downtown open-space.

Exactly, put AI in the office instead.

Because downtown city centers were missing out on office worker revenue and started giving incentives to companies who brought people back into the office. I 100% believe the reason we went back into the office at all was because of this despite all the talk of 'in-person collaboration.'

I remember reading articles about local politicians insisting companies and governments do return to office for no other reason than to have the workers spend money downtown for lunch. Not even implying it, directly stating it.

...and increasing valuation of office real state.

WFH and the almost 100% shutdown off airline travel at the beginning of the pandemic resulted in nearly 0 change in CO2 emission and levels in the atmosphere.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

Of course we shouldn't expect a couple of years of shutdown to significantly reverse 200 years of man-made atmospheric CO2 accumulation, but surely it would help stop the problem to get worse if the widespread WFH effort were sustained after the pandemic.

It's a bit off topic but that didn't sound right to me.

According to the following it was a reduction but yes near zero in the context of total emissions. A few hundred million tonnes reduction ain't nothin none the less.

"plummeted from more than 1 000 Mt CO2 in 2019 to less than 600 Mt CO2 in 2020, in the context of the pandemic.

In 2023, aviation accounted for 2.5% of global energy-related CO2 emissions, "

https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation

Heavens no! How could we ever afford to be more productive overall? Just think of the effect on corporate real estate prices.

That's true. I wonder if the government might force companies to allow WFH if there are petrol shortages.

They did it during covid so I wouldn't rule it out.

I don't have data but I was always under the impression that consumer use of fossil fuels (ie gas) was a drop in the bucket compared to enterprise use of fossil fuels (shipping trucks/boats/planes, private jets, etc).

The whole "reduce your carbon footprint PSA" was just a ruse.

> The whole "reduce your carbon footprint PSA" was just a ruse.

It is especially true in the context of this war when the US is attacking oil infrastructure which is causing catastrophic environmental damage: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/world/middleeast/iran-oil...

Similarly related to the paper straw meme that has been circulating the last while.

Also: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/30/carbon-footpri...

Yikes. I never really thought about the environmental impacts of war mainly because no one seems to talk about it.

Now that I know about it, it just infuriates me that anyone could even criticize any individual person's usage of fossil fuels.

Ugh don't get me started on paper straws! At least EVs are a cool way to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, however ineffective it may be at scale. But nobody likes paper straws.

But the companies have a large carbon foodprint to deliver a product or service for the consumer.

When I buy a large SUV / Truck, and never drive it, is that not counted negative towards my carbon foodprint?

> But the companies have a large carbon foodprint to deliver a product or service for the consumer.

I agree that that's _why_ they have a large carbon footprint, no company is just burning fossil fuels for fun. But it doesn't change a) the fact that they do have a large carbon footprint, and b) entire cities could ban gas cars and everyone could take public transit and it still wouldn't make a dent in the global carbon footprint.

As I think you're alluding to over-consumerism as a cause of companies having a large carbon footprint, that's part of it. But unless everyone just stops consuming, it's not gonna change anything. If it were legislated that big companies needed to reduce their carbon footprint by X% by Y date I think that would be the most effective, short term at least.

> When I buy a large SUV / Truck, and never drive it, is that not counted negative towards my carbon foodprint?

I don't know why it'd be negative. Zero or neutral, at best, but not negative. Negative would entail you're somehow removing CO2 from the environment.

Oh my bad, I used negative wrong.

I mean if I buy a car (and never drive it) and have a phone, ipad and computer that I never use. Is it not ME who has a huge carbon footprint?

Compared to coal companies fighting tooth and nail to keep their industry relevant and the govt acquiescing instead of focusing on renewables, I don't think any individual can be considered to have a "huge" carbon footprint.

But think of the commercial real estate market?!?! What about the chopped salad slop bowl market?! Dry cleaning?! This would shatter the fabric of our precious society. We need butts in seats. We need to foster open communication and cross functional pollination.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com