Al Gore’s Inconvenient Judgment

[ai_Droid]

I very much doubt it is anywhere near as efficient as a home in terms of carbon footprint and therefore environmental impact.

 

Aye, if the office doesn't exist because all your staff are homeworking, that's one extra building that didn't need to be built, so a pretty huge saving right there.

[Albert Tatlock]

doesn't it require additional heating/energy when compared to working in a communal office a couple of miles away?

 

I would suspect not, but there are a vast number of variables you have to take into play which can only be ascertained through some proper research and measurement.

 

I work in an enormous office - one whole 'block' in central London. The rule of thumb here is roughly 6 square metres per person, not including communal areas like toilets, the in-house cafe, the in-house pub, meeting rooms, the Grand Central-esque main reception, the secondary reception, storage areas, and so forth - all of which are lit and heated, and many of which are thoroughfares meaning that heat is constantly being lost as doors are opened and so on.

 

On top of which you then have the machinery involved in keeping folk going - everything from air conditioning through to monitors, coffee machines and so on.

 

I very much doubt it is anywhere near as efficient as a Lurks' home in terms of carbon footprint and therefore environmental impact.

Er...houses are a great deal more than 6M^2, he has a computer and has to duplicate other stuff like shredders etc. I'm sure he also has hot drinks, cooks his lunch, uses the toilet and stores his stuff at home etc.

[Lurkah]

Wow that's 'good' - I bet your wife's called Barbara. Though I would question a couple of things there:

 

Haha. Yes, a few people have made similar gags. On our blog site someone's changed my avatar to the goodlife image.

 

1. My wife and I work from home, we no longer commute. (surely not very efficient really - have you calculated this? i.e. doesn't it require additional heating/energy when compared to working in a communal office a couple of miles away?)

 

Reasonable point. It's unfair to say that we're both working from home as a green-choice alone really. It's part and parcel of managing to move out of London. That move allowed the rest of the measures, I tacked this on as an upshot really.

 

Truthfully, I haven't run those numbers. I was going to try take a stab here at a beer-mat calculation but I realised I'm without hard info on the heating contribution, only have electricity. And of course it's very difficult to know what your 'share' of a communal office bill of energy is. That's food for thought. We appear to be quite low users of heating but higher users of electricity what with all of the computers and such forth.

 

I would throw this into the mix though, a recent calculation I *did* do was for a friend who has an, ah, cabon intensive lifestyle. He commutes in to London in his BWM, quite a ways too. I worked out that this was an incredible 40Kg of carbon a *day*. That's a very great deal of electricity and heating so in that case, he'd be better off at home. But what about someone who drives a couple of villages and then doesn't heat house or run an electricity bull while they're at work.

 

It might be more efficient for them to go to an office. One thing though, where I am - commuting would tend to be a fair rail commute and that sadly is really quite intensive on the CO2 front.

 

3. Virtually everything in the house, despite my electronics vocation, is low energy or has been chosen for that. Even to the point of me measuring current drain on the mains and individual appliances to detect the worst offenders. Some of the equipment is on master switches due to high standby currents. (that's a bit too fanatical for me - you shouldn't have to do that - just read the back of the appliance when you buy it and do a simple wattage/current calculation - unless you're obessed chasing milliwatts)

 

Well, in the case of computers you really don't know until you measure. Also there's stand-by currents. I found my video projector would happily sit there eating 10 watts when it was in stand-by which really isn't cricket. I don't do this all the time, but I try to do it once for things. Also I ran around the house and removed all those pesky DC adaptors for things that got plugged in occasionally and shaved off 15W. That's 15W all of the TIME like. Given it's zero effort it seemed sensible to me. But yeah, you could just do as well by being sensible not needing to know the exact figures

 

How many children do you have? If you have more than two - then pah! you missed the real opportunity to do your bit to 'save the planet'.

 

Zero. But you know I'm not going to run around telling people not to have families because that would be the best CO2 effect. That's just getting silly. Although I think I would agree that having many children is exhibiting a kind of irresponsibility. Is that contraversial?

[Bulgin.Grotbags]

Er...houses are a great deal more than 6M^2, he has a computer and has to duplicate other stuff like shredders etc. I'm sure he also has hot drinks, cooks his lunch, uses the toilet and stores his stuff at home etc.

 

Yes, yes they are.

 

They also don't have hundreds of people in them, nor do they permanently light and heat every single room from the lounge to the airing cupboard to the attic, all the time. Nor do they suffer from constant door and window opening on a mass scale. Nor do they have rooms big enough to roll an aeroplane into. Shredders are a complete dead end unless he's for some bizarre reason shredding 24/7.

 

My point stands. Working from home is undoubtedly less environmentally impactful overall than opening up and running a huge office block.

[Albert Tatlock]

Er...houses are a great deal more than 6M^2, he has a computer and has to duplicate other stuff like shredders etc. I'm sure he also has hot drinks, cooks his lunch, uses the toilet and stores his stuff at home etc.

 

Yes, yes they are.

 

They also don't have hundreds of people in them, nor do they permanently light and heat every single room from the lounge to the airing cupboard to the attic, all the time. Nor do they suffer from constant door and window opening on a mass scale. Nor do they have rooms big enough to roll an aeroplane into. Shredders are a complete dead end unless he's for some bizarre reason shredding 24/7.

 

My point stands. Working from home is undoubtedly less environmentally impactful overall than opening up and running a huge office block.

Even taking into account hundreds of houses don't have to be heated whilst the people are at work?

[Bulgin.Grotbags]

of course it's very difficult to know what your 'share' of a communal office bill of energy is

 

Actually, if you work in maintenance/operations its data you have available. For example here, the 8 or so divisions each pay a series of what can only be described as internal-wooden-dollar taxes based on #staff, where #staff is further broken down by how much it takes to heat, light and secure each person plus their use (or ability to use) things like the communal services. Its all very carefully buttoned down because it represents a significant chunk of spend and therefore revenue hit.

 

However such data is rather pointless if you've got no similar data from a home setup.

 

I personally do not see how a small (comparably) double glazed, carpeted and contained work environment can be anything but less impactful than the vast majority of monolithic office blocks you see around the UK.

[Lurkah]

I very much doubt it is anywhere near as efficient as a Lurks' home in terms of carbon footprint and therefore environmental impact.

 

I think there's definite cases where it might be more efficient for people to work in a relatively close by office.

 

But there's a few modifiers to that which do swing things a bit towards the home, one of which you point out. Homes tend to be relatively efficient. Also in offices I think there's that lack of individual responsibility regarding energy use which must really account for a lot. I mean that photo copier and the laser printers are sat there in stand by 24-7? No one bothers to turn off lights, hell they don't bother to turn off their computers when they go home if my experience is any indication. (In fact that was policy at one of the large companies I worked for some years back, because updates happened in the middle of the night).

 

When people work from home they're paying the bills. Granted they're tax deductable but you are not indifferent to the costs. I also think people tend to use energy where they need it. You turn the lights on in a room when you use it, where as in offices they're always blasted out with lights in every room mostly right?

 

I have a lot of experience working from home and being involved in a small company where most of the staff worked from home. There are actually further reasons why companies don't do this more often. The simplest one is that productivity falls. If you haven't got a boss, if you don't have fluid inter-office communications, things just don't work quite as well. And then there's difficulty of meetings.

 

These can be combatted for certain kinds of business effectively. What I'd like to see more often, and something I'll probably do next year myself, is the move to something like this:

 

1. Company has smaller building than necessary for all staff.

2. Building is predominently meeting rooms and hot-desks.

3. Staff come in for just a couple of days a week.

4. Staff to have tasks broken down into things to achieve before they come back into office etc. Workflow management.

 

Sounds like a cop out but you have to be realistic about business. There's a reason they're running these large centralised offices right now so you have to address what they're looking for as well.

 

You think about it though, take London. If the businesses operated in a way I describe here then you'd cut down on people needing to commute in by how much? 20% or something, just imagine how much more pleasant being on the tube in rush hour would be. Probably something people can only understand if they've done it

[Bulgin.Grotbags]

Even taking into account hundreds of houses don't have to be heated whilst the people are at work?

 

We were talking about Lurks' setup specifically. I've seen it - its rather groovy and not a bad way to be chipping in towards the overall end-game of reducing your impact where you can.

 

Its rather more difficult to talk about things when you lump in the vagaries of national thermostat usage.

[Cambon]

Who do you think you're kidding matey boy? Now you come here, spouting random statements nay-saying climate change all on the basis - well of no basis at all - and you expect people to think you're boxing clever here too?

 

Christ pal, you *really* need to up your game.

 

The interesting thing is though, you have me totally wrong on this thread. I realise there is climate change and live in an efficient house that has a low carbon foot print. I am constantly trying to think of ways of improving it, and have been since 1989, when I first became aware of greenhouse problems. However, paying carbon offsets to businesses on the promise of lowering your "potential" carbon footprint is simply stupid, when you can use the money on things like home improvement and public transport in order to improve your "actual" carbon footprint.

 

I am not against the science and theory, I am against the industry that has emerged around global warming, and that is supported by the government

[ai_Droid]

The interesting thing is though, you have me totally wrong on this thread. I realise there is climate change and live in an efficient house that has a low carbon foot print. I am constantly trying to think of ways of improving it, and have been since 1989, when I first became aware of greenhouse problems.

I am not against the science and theory, I am against the industry that has emerged around global warming, and that is supported by the government

 

So you didn't say:

 

I know there is global warming and I know it has been steadily happening for many centuries. I am pretty sure that what we are doing with emmisions is not helping but I am also not naive enough to believe we can change nature.

 

You're very clearly against the science. Backpeddle faster mate, you're losing lots of ground!

 

And care to show me where it says alcohol content has gone up in that article?

[Lurkah]

The interesting thing is though, you have me totally wrong on this thread.

 

Listen, I don't mind ratcheting down the nasty personal rhetoric if you don't, and you've shown that willingness. So fair enough...

 

But I do have to point out that someone posted a message that said basically it's human nature to worry, people will worry about something regardless and you said that's the most sensible thing you've seen regarding climate change. You can't believe that if you're telling me now "I am constantly trying to think of ways of improving it". Come on. It's clearly not the most sensible thing is it?

 

You've also said some stuff about changing messages about climate change. As if that's a governmental thing. I think that's unfair. Scientific consensus has been developing and changing. Only a couple of decades ago this wasn't on the radar. As AI_Droid points out, politicians would really rather climate change wasn't around at all. They don't have a vested interest because telling people what they can't do, putting up prices and so on... these things are not vote winners. And that's still the biggest threat to what needs to be done. The USA's democractic system is largely for sale. And big business hates climate change initiatives * and lo and behold, we see the USA resisting global climate change treaties more than any other country in the West.

 

I completely agree that carbon offsetting schemes are nonsensical. Appart from anything else there's evidence to suggest that at least some of them are actively misleading and others, such as planting of trees in Northern Europe, doesn't do anything positive anyway.

 

There is a disturbing industry developing whereby high-carbon lifestyle individuals can basically assuage their guilt by forking out money, something they have in happy supply, rather than choosing to actual adapt their lifestyle. That's dangerous and irresponsible and I think we can agree on that.

 

* Except for the business that decides it's a much better idea to remove all of the wheat farms and replace with bio-fuel crops, thereby dramatically increasing the cost of food-aid to developing countries and sending the cost of flour and cattle feed soaring, upping the cost of meat and bread for all of us. Sigh.

[Cambon]

I know there is global warming and I know it has been steadily happening for many centuries. I am pretty sure that what we are doing with emmisions is not helping but I am also not naive enough to believe we can change nature.

 

You're very clearly against the science. Backpeddle faster mate, you're losing lots of ground!

 

And care to show me where it says alcohol content has gone up in that article?

 

 

No! The science pretty much all points to carbon adding to the problem, and I believe that is undeniable. However, where is the scientific proof that once the additional carbon is gone, that the natural global warming trend of the last 1600+ years is going to go away?

 

I apologise for the alcohol content slur against the times. It was in another link.

 

As for the size of a pint, take a measuring jug next time you go to the pub and ask for a pint of bitter. It will include a head. Pour it into the measuring jug, let it settle and you will see the net result of beer will be around 18oz, that is around 500mil, un demi - as desired by brussels.

[ai_Droid]

No! The science pretty much all points to carbon adding to the problem, and I believe that is undeniable. However, where is the scientific proof that once the additional carbon is gone, that the natural global warming trend of the last 1600+ years is going to go away?

 

The 90+ percent I was refering to earlier is the IPCC's verdict about man made influence on climate change. That the world is warming isn't even under question. The science we're talkinga about here is the man made influence.

 

Tell me though, if you don't believe it's man made, why do you make all the effort you referred to just now?

 

I apologise for the alcohol content slur against the times. It was in another link.

 

Show me?

 

 

As for the size of a pint, take a measuring jug next time you go to the pub and ask for a pint of bitter. It will include a head. Pour it into the measuring jug, let it settle and you will see the net result of beer will be around 18oz, that is around 500mil, un demi - as desired by brussels.

 

'Un Demi' is about half a pint. In the UK, a pint of beer is legally 568.26125 ml. Same in ireland. Europe has given up trying to metric beer in this country, they don't impose anything on beer measures.

 

You're actually wrong about everything you've posted in the last two weeks I think?

[Mr. Sausages]

The head on the pint of beer has always been a bone of contention. Nothing to do with Brussels.

 

http://www.camra.org.uk/download.aspx?o=239734

[Cambon]

But I do have to point out that someone posted a message that said basically it's human nature to worry, people will worry about something regardless and you said that's the most sensible thing you've seen regarding climate change. You can't believe that if you're telling me now "I am constantly trying to think of ways of improving it". Come on. It's clearly not the most sensible thing is it?

 

 

* Except for the business that decides it's a much better idea to remove all of the wheat farms and replace with bio-fuel crops, thereby dramatically increasing the cost of food-aid to developing countries and sending the cost of flour and cattle feed soaring, upping the cost of meat and bread for all of us. Sigh.

 

The problem I have with a lot of this is, even just on Manx Forums there are many threads on this subject. It is something that with a lot of work may not happen over the next few centurys and yet sparks these massive debate.

 

At the same time it is likely that we could have a bird flu pandemic that could wipe out tens of millions of lives, with no vaccine and little to stop it. Personally, I am more bothered about that at the moment.

 

I agree on the farming quote. Did you hear on the news last night someone is banging on about scrapping fresh milk and only having UHT? I guess it means they wont need as many cows so more fields for biofuels I suppose.