Turning cameras off during Zoom meetings can help the climate, study finds
www.ctvnews.ca
Turning off the camera during Zoom or video meetings can actually help reduce a person's carbon footprint of the call by 96 per cent, a new environmental study finds.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/4470763

(link covers a 2021 study by Purdue, Yale, and MIT)

Some folks think teleworking is favorable to the environment on the basis that they avoid driving to work. IMO that’s quite far-fetched when you consider that a worksite with a capacity of ~1000 workers would consume much less energy than heating and cooling 1000 residential homes. Then you have account for the footprint attributed to heavy internet bandwidth demands.

Nothing beats cycling to work and working on-site. But if you are working from home, it’s worthwhile to try to attend non-video conferences. A presenter may have no choice in some cases but certainly you need not see everyone’s faces.

FWiW, these are steps to disable high-bandwidth frills:

Firefox

(disable animations)
  • disable animations (non-CSS, non-GIF varieties): about:config » toolkit.cosmeticAnimations.enabled » true→false
  • disabling CSS animations needs these ad-hoc steps
  • disabling animated GIFs (useless?): about:config » image.animation_mode » (normal → none) or (normal → once, to just disable the play loops) Or for refined on-the-fly control install this plugin ⚠Disabling animated GIFs in Firefox may be useless. I get the impression animated GIFs are still fetched but simply not played automatically, thus bandwidth is still wasted.
(disable still images)

about:config » permissions.default.image » 1→2

Chrome/Chromium

(disable GIF animations only)

Install this plugin first which only works sometimes; when it fails try this one.

(disable still images)
  1. Click the Customize and control Google Chrome menu button, which is the on the far-right side of the URL toolbar.
  2. Select Settings on the menu to bring up that tab.
  3. Click Privacy and security on the left side of Google Chrome.
  4. Select Site Settings to view the content options.
  5. Then click Images to bring up the options shown directly below.
  6. Select the Don’t allow sites to show images radio button.

I have deliberately spared readers from the source links to the above info because the information is buried in enshitified webpages with shenanigans like cookie popups that have no reject all option. Looks like this post is a bit enshitified itself since the details/summary HTML tags are broken here (they tend to be accepted on other Lemmy instances). If anyone knows the fix plz let me know. (reported)

  • BeefPiano@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    1 year ago

    There is never bad weather; only bad clothes.

    Yeah, but there aren’t any clothes I can buy to fix 80 years of car-centric housing and infrastructure.

    As for “sufficiently wise” people turning off heat in their house from 9-5, my dog and plants will not appreciate a 45°F (7°C) house in the winter, nor a 100°F (38°C) house in the summer.

    And yeah, a lot of my coworkers can’t be convinced to do much in the way of sustainable choices, and some are really smart! Intelligence and values are separate and you come off as condescending when you try to say your argument is flawless because anyone intelligent agrees with you.

    If your goal is to make the planet better, you need to change people’s minds. You do that with empathy and meeting people where they are at, not decreeing that remote work is bad for the environment because in a hypothetical ideal work scenario where everyone already can cycle to work we it seems like it should reduce emissions.

    • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but there aren’t any clothes I can buy to fix 80 years of car-centric housing and infrastructure.

      Luckily I have no premise that relies on avoiding regions with shitty civil engineers and lousy planning as far as where to live. I personally will not live in an uncyclable region but as I repeatedly said even if you drive to work it’s still insignificant compared to heating and cooling waste.

      my dog and plants will not appreciate a 45°F (7°C) house in the winter, nor a 100°F (38°C) house in the summer.

      Dogs do not need the level of heat that humans do. You need 5°C to prevent pipes freezing anyway and you can bump that up to ~10—13°C to keep a house dog comfortable (perhaps just in a small part of the house). The summer is a more notable problem for a dog, which should always have plenty of water all day. If it really reaches 38°C inside the house, that’d be an outlier case but indeed you would need to leave the cooling on – which might then make teleworking momentarily sensible at least until you figure out what’s wrong with your insulation and perhaps as well why your house does not have tree shade. Your choice of house plants implies you need to adapt (at least to the extent that you care). Certainly it’s unreasonable to heat and cool a house solely to accommodate incompatible plants. Plants that cannot survive indoor climates are unsuitable for your use-case.

      • schmorp@slrpnk.netMEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        I personally will not live in an uncyclable region

        Maybe just be glad you have the freedom to choose a cyclable region and have a house insulated well enough to turn down the heating.

        But in all the good spirits of internet discussions’ name: avoid assuming too much about what other people’s life conditions permit, or about their intelligence based on their workplace. None of these are worthy points for any discussion anywhere.

        Of course your recommendations about insulation, tree shade, etc. are spot on technically, but only a few people have actually any choice about where they live or work. I know, we all have choice in a sense, but we are all trying to survive at same time. Assume everone is doing their possible (except SUV drivers).

        • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
          1·
          11 months ago

          Maybe just be glad you have the freedom to choose a cyclable region and have a house insulated well enough to turn down the heating.

          It doesn’t do any good that one person has an insulated house. The problem is when you have 1000 teleworkers working from uninsulated homes as opposed to an office building with 1000 people. Office buildings are insulated while residential homes are often not. The energy waste of moving staff from an insulated office into individually heated homes is bad for everyone.

          It’s also a false ecology because these people think they are doing the environment a favor by not driving.

          or about their intelligence based on their workplace.

          The (bogus) claim was:

          The author assumes that the alternative to remote work is that everyone bikes to work (year round) and doesn’t heat/cool their homes when they’re unoccupied?

          The CO₂ footprint of burning gas to commute to work is insignificant compared to the cost of heating and cooling individual homes all day long. The cycling option merely goes above and beyond to render the claim that teleworking is somehow climate-favorable absurd. Cycling is not a premise and it was not a necessary component to my thesis. In fact, I just muddied the waters by mentioning it.

          The stupidity I referred to was the 2nd part of what I quoted-- the claim that people heat and cool unoccupied homes to a notable extent. If a workplace really has a significant number of staff who are heating and cooling unoccupied homes, then I still hold that such a workplace has a notable number of low intelligence workers. That’s hypothetical IMO, because most likely no such workplace exists. Most people have enough sense to not heat and cool an unoccupied house. That’s a safe assumption. I would need to see proof to the contrary.

          None of these are worthy points for any discussion anywhere.

          BeefPiano’s argument leads to a workplace full of fools. Surely you don’t have so many people foolish enough to heat and cool unoccupied homes. So it follows from that that it’s poor claim to make. It’s unlikely that people actually believe that a large number of people would do that, from which a workplace full of fools would manifest. Did someone walk away from that thinking beefPiano’s workplace was full of fools? Unlikely. You would only conclude that if you actually bought into beefPiano’s claim.

          IOW, it’s not my stance that his workplace was low intelligence workers (that’s effectively his stance). I’m saying surely not. Surely people are sensible with their thermostats.

          Of course your recommendations about insulation, tree shade, etc. are spot on technically, but only a few people have actually any choice about where they live or work.

          I don’t believe that. Places like Cuba and N.Korea aside, most people have a choice where they work and where they live. Many (perhaps a majority) voluntarily make the poor choice to live and work far apart as they take for granted the convenience cars give them. Most particularly in the US. But that’s not the poor decision the thread is centered on – it’s the next poor decision: to telework (and worse, from an uninsulated house).

          Note as well we are talking about careers where teleworking is possible. You might say a min. wage janitor who lives outside a high cost region and commutes is “trapped”, but teleworking is not even an option for janitors and other blue collar workers. We are talking white collar workers who generally earn well above living wages. They are not trapped and have both free choice of where to work and where to live.