[gundmc]

> Workers will likely have to leave their families behind for a week every 2 months.

Yes, or they could continue to live locally. It's about more flexibility for what is the right choice for each family. I don't see this as a problem.

> And where will they stay during office-week? Hotel, AirBnb, corporate short-term housing? People travel for work all the time and it's not an issue. If hotel capacity becomes insufficient other solutions will pop up - like furnished apartment rentals. I don't see this as a large issue either.

[ACow_Adonis]

Well, with all due respect, that doesn't result in me (or I would argue, most workers) being able to live wherever they want. Plus you would still have to live relatively close to a major airport or something (and I don't even know what that's going to look like yet post-covid).

MAYBE it makes things better for a handful of relatively rich, highly paid workers/companies who don't mind spending significant time away from their families/homes, are happy to travel and who are willing to spring for regular accommodation for their workers, but I think for most workers springing for an office at home would be widely preferable.

And I say that as someone who, pre-covid, had to do a couple of nights per couple-of-months away from my family because my employer's work was already distributed around the nation...(honestly, the travel was personally one of the worst aspects of my job, though I know other people loved it).

Now with covid, i'm bitten with the "not enough space at home" problem (though thank god we got an in-built study put in beforehand), but I no longer have to travel long distances or stay overnight at any of the interstate offices, which i personally find a blessing.

But i'd take the all-remote or "two days in" model in preference...

[dheera]

> live relatively close to a major airport

Also not to mention that flying even ONCE per year round-trip across the country will likely emit more carbon than a full year's worth of local commutes. Now multiply that by 6 for every 2 months.

Everything everyone says about greenhouse gas benefits of remote work just went out the window as soon as air travel is mentioned.

[ksk]

>Everything everyone says about greenhouse gas benefits of remote work just went out the window as soon as air travel is mentioned.

Well, but that kind of criticism applies to anything and everything. For e.g. Do you also judge whether to buy a particular computer based on the amount of greenhouse gas or chemical pollutants in the supply chain that were caused due to its manufacture? Or do you also consider the fact that every-time you make a purchase it has to be put on a ship or a truck or a plane so that it gets to you? If you live in a remote area with low pop. density, there is more fuel being wasted bringing things to fewer people, etc, etc. Trying to reconcile Whats good for the planet vs Whats good for me/everyone is going to involve compromises.

[exdsq]

Not sure why you’ve been downvoted, you’re absolutely correct.

[dang]

Would you please not break the site guidelines like this? If you read them to the end, you'll notice that they explicitly ask you not to post this kind of comment.

One reason is that users frequently give corrective upvotes (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=corrective%20upvote&dateRange=...), which leaves a complaint like this dangling as uncollected garbage.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[hengri]

I'm guessing it's a uncomfortable fact for the hackernews crowd who seem to travel a lot and also claim to care for climate change.

[DenisM]

Transatlantic flight generates under 1000kg of CO2 per passenger. Cars generate 0.12kg per km. A short commute is 30 km per day, so about a 1000 kg per year - a wash.

A longer commute will generate more, being stuck in traffic will generate more, building new roads will generate more. A flight that is not cross-Atlantic will generate much less.

It’s not clear which way the balance will tilt, but you can’t just make blanket statement that planes will be worse than cars - you have to show your math.

[dheera]

The average american commute is about 15 miles [0] which is 24 km.

A round trip from JFK to FRA emits about 0.91 t (910 kg) CO2 but if you account for radiative forcing [1] it is equivalent to 1.62 t (1620 kg) [2].

That's not to mention multiplying all these figures by 6 (for every 2 months), so that's 9720 kg.

I don't think it's a wash.

[0] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1006/ML100621425.pdf

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

[2] https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

[DenisM]

1. 15 miles one way. 30miles x 1.6km x 1.12kg/km x 250 days = 1440 kg

2. Few people will move form US to Germany. It's more likely someone will move e.g. from Portland to San Diego. 275kg roundtrip, 550kg adjusted for radiative forcing.

So if you fly 3 times per year it's a wash, if you fly 6 times a year it's double the CO2 emission.