In some ways this feels like “…and in other news, water is still wet.” Less heating or cooling of an inefficient office building, less gas used, improved likelihood that natural light is used through most of the day, etc.
Agreed, but I think the difference is now there’s some empirical proof.
Isn’t the proof which shows 2+2=4 really long, longer than a non-mathetician might expect?
I have to say, I was disappointed in the comments on the article. I know, I know, the comments, but still. A lot of people were saying how not all jobs can be done from home, and of course that’s true, but you’d think that people would realize it’s not about making everyone work from home – it’s about how every little bit helps, and it so happens this is a little bit more than just a little bit.
I think that gets lost in a lot of discussions about sustainability and the environment – whatever the solution is, it is unlikely it will be one-size-fits-all for every geographical and economic niche.