• whitecapstromgard
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is such a no-brainer that I’m surprised the climate crowd are not advocating more aggressively for it.

    • ringwraithfish@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Something like 70% of greenhouse gasses are produced by 100 companies globally. This is like using a cup to empty an Olympic sized pool: yes, it does something, but not enough.

      We need to maintain focus on the big producers and affect change there first and foremost.

        • ringwraithfish@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          This article talks specifically about energy usage, not consumption of products. Work from home likely wouldn’t have an impact in consumed goods.

          I’m a WFH employee, and my company has no plans to change it. I’m all for WFH. I brought up the issue of 100 companies producing 70% of greenhouse gases because to me this article lines up with the idea of us reducing our individual carbon footprint, which we’ve found out in the last few years was just a coordinated effort by the fossil fuel industry to deflect their responsibility to us.

          All of these efforts are good. WFH is good, renewable energies are good, EVs are debatable (depending on where you stand on how the rare materials needed for the batteries are sourced) but overall better than gas and diesel. But at the end of the day, if your tub is overflowing you need to turn off the tap first before you pick up the mop.