digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at thedailygreen.com —

Top 10 Ways To NOT Screw Up the Environment At Work

thedailygreen.com — Sure, work might be the most boring part of your life -- perhaps you routinely count the seconds until each work day is over and dread coming in the following day. But so long as you're there, why not do your best to not screw up the environment? Here are 10 ways anyone can get started:

show profanity settings
expand all
  • psogle, on 05/28/2008, -1/+20I have basically cut paper out of my workday entirely. I mean I can't think of one things that paper can do better than my computer
    • Scott31182, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4I agree - everything i do for work is through email and digital docs.
    • aserer511, on 05/29/2008, -8/+2how about minimalize your carbon footprint? paper doesn't consume oil.
      • ricksite, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8LOL. You are joking...right?
      • aserer511, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1so, the electricity that the pulp chipper uses is NEGLIGIBLE when worked out per sheet, likewise when you consider the gas (per sheet) it took to get to him. His PC perpetually uses electricity, 100watts/hr is a fair estimate. now look; I was making an example of how ironic it is to go green, but in all practicality, if someone's job uses 100 sheets of paper a day but no computer usage, switching over to 8 hours of PC usage, aka 800 watts/day, may not be so much better
    • chopsky, on 05/29/2008, -6/+0Reduce your paper consumption and you're going to reduce the amount of trees.
      More paper consumed = more trees planted.
      It's basic supply and demand
      • cha5e, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3You're ignoring the other things that go into paper production and distribution, though.
    • AquaTeenMS, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Make Pinatas
    • LeonidasStokely, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Get a paper cut. For when you need just a little bit of blood to ensure that promotion...
    • mellowmaromi, on 05/29/2008, -1/+0I just realised, I printed the web page out, I'm going to hell
    • cr42yr1ch, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8I would like to see a computer aeroplane...
    • o0Scottyboy0o, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1I find paper tends to have a shorter boot time and keeps my power bill down.
    • heymike, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5I hope you are excluding toilet paper and/or hand towels else you will end up with a disgusting computer.
    • joshuabowers, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Paper-airplanes fly better than laptop-airplanes
    • cha5e, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Let's see...I've been at my current job for 14 weeks, and have used...54 sheets of paper and 5 post-its (1x2" size). I'll have to admit, that's more than I would have guessed.

      If your work machine isn't a laptop...kind of hard to take notes in meetings w/o paper, though.
  • smurfz, on 05/28/2008, -1/+15recycle!
    • liljay2k, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle
      There, I fixed it.
    • Buddhaismybuddy, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Paper is obsolete.
  • sonnygill, on 05/28/2008, -1/+29Number 4 is the best advice.
  • hgrave23, on 05/29/2008, -1/+6Kegs use energy too... I just don't follow that one!
    • geogeer, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8If you're drunk you can go to sleep and turn off the lights.
      • o0Scottyboy0o, on 05/29/2008, -1/+0Good thinking. Now we all have an excuse.
    • c0baltfish, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3You can reuse a keg w/o having to recycle it.
  • abiqua, on 05/29/2008, -3/+8The only type of paper I still use is sticky-notes. Checking to-do items off a real piece of paper is just somehow more satisfying than checking a done box on my computer.
  • ChinezePanda, on 05/29/2008, -13/+22Im all for saving the planet and all.

    But today I am at work and I hear this on the radio:

    "Hi. Let me introduce you to Timmy. He is 5. And currently he is so concerned about the environment that he has reduced his carbon foot print by 36 percent"

    Across the halls.. actually throughout the entire office.. You could hear people laughing and saying "*****"

    This whole "go green" thing is getting a little out of hand.
    • nerdia, on 05/29/2008, -1/+13I don't know why the people say the 'go green' thing is getting out of hand. In fact, environmental care in America seems to be non existent. In Toronto, Canada all our waste bins accomodate for recycled cans, recycled papers, and trash. In ours homes we have food bins separated from regular garbage for food waste, and another for trash that can't compost. We get recycling bins for cans and for cardboard as well. They only pick up trash every two weeks since its output should now be pretty minimal.

      Comparitively, it seems like there's no GOING at all when it comes to America.
      • monoa, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3Yeah, and that's the normal procedure for most of Europe.

        Seems like most of the planet is tooling up to try and stop a catastrophe while the USA is sitting on their well-padded asses, shouting "*****!" at radios, just before they hop in the Hummer for the drive home via McDonalds.
      • johnn11238, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3What America are you paying attention to?? I have been recycling at home and at work for more than 10 years, and so has pretty much everybody I know. Then again, I'm from New York...
      • nicc, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1where I live in VA the city tells us NOT to sort out recyclables as it costs the city more to supply the extra containers, etc.
        they tell us to put all the trash in 1 standard bin and they will sort it out at their trash/recycle center...
    • mywhitenoise, on 05/29/2008, -3/+9How is it getting out of hand? Dude, just do some research (hell, just watch some simple ***** like "The Human Footprint") and see how bad we are with consumption, the US is one of the worst environmentally friendly countries out there.
      http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/huma ...
    • aubynr, on 05/29/2008, -5/+4Out of hand?

      Do us all a favor, reduce your imprint. kill yourself.
  • pentupentropy, on 05/29/2008, -1/+31also, you can just not go to work. Saves gas, paper, electric at work, all sorts of stuff
    • irfanmp, on 05/29/2008, -1/+5Not a bad idea. Once we stop going to work, we can lose our jobs, causing us to not pay the electric bill which will cause our electricity being shut off, and then we'll be conserving energy! I think i'm gonna just storm out of work in protest!
    • Existenz87, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1I think it would be best to just commit mass suicide. Create some compost you know, stop consuming everything, or just feed ourselves to wild animals. Yeah. Yeah.
    • PhattyPhattMatt, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1The only problem with that is not going to work makes step #4 difficult to do. how am i supposed to have a keg under my desk if i dont have a desk?
    • Haoie, on 05/29/2008, -0/+0I think the idea being proposed was increased work-at-home programs for employees.
  • babychen, on 05/29/2008, -3/+5I guess some people already do a few of these without consciously planning it. We have begun to think environment-friendly by default. Not that even all this might help, things might already be a bit beyond fixing now.
  • Rubab, on 05/29/2008, -3/+5We need to pay attention to environment wherever we are.. these are real good tips to make us environmentally responsible..
  • chethanp, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3All these seem logical...how many of us think of not messing up with environs before doing something?
  • Angelspit, on 05/29/2008, -0/+21Turning off someone else's computer (!!): that might help to save the environment, but the environment won't help you save your sorry ass..
    • davidrools, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2I set my BIOS to automatically turn my computer on in the morning on weekdays, so it's always ready to go when I get to work. I'm trying to spread the idea since the only conceivable reason people leave their computers on all night is so they don't have to wait for it to start up in the morning.
      • Angelspit, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Nice. How do you do that, if I may ask?
  • YME1280, on 05/29/2008, -1/+7#4 is my favorite. But I wonder if it would work better replacing the water cooler bottle with a nice cold keg of Heineken would make work more productive? I'll be the guinea pig!
    • LeonidasStokely, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1/setting someone up to link to xkcd
    • marx2k, on 05/29/2008, -1/+0*turns up nose* I don't get out of bed for anything less than Bud Light
  • nataliesoud, on 05/29/2008, -3/+3Great, practical tips that anyone can easily integrate into their work life. I definitely don't think the "green thing" is getting "out of hand" as Chineze Panda said. I think many people are realizing the green movement is both practical and much better for the environment. I think of it as an evolution, a necessarily lifestyle change that many people are fortunately choosing to make!
  • BCCStu, on 05/29/2008, -0/+11Email...never fax anything ever.
    • socialpyramid, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Half the time people don't get the faxes I send anyway. Either it doesn't go through or someone loses it or the paper jams...
    • mattnewbill, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Tell that to the real estate industry. Those guys are the worst at relying on faxes to conduct business.
    • c0baltfish, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1What about documents you have to sign?
  • dannylewis, on 05/29/2008, -1/+9At my work, I make my own notepads by reusing scrap paper. Here's how I make them: I quarter about 12 sheets using our limb-removing paper cutter, use an extra sheet or scrap card stock to fold over the top portion, and then staple the sheets using our heavy duty staples. It takes about 5 minutes to do this and saves post-it notes.
    • Stradenko, on 05/29/2008, -2/+3Not taking into account the price of the paper, card stock or industrial staples, you should probably be fired if you do this on-the-clock and make more than $39,811 per year ($0.32 per minute) [1].

      [1] If we assume a notepad is $1.59. http://www.staples.com/office/supplies/StaplesProd ...
      • tschau, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1We're going to have to confront the fact that the cheapest option may not be the one that keeps our planet habitable. That might not factor into his company's bottom line, but it sure does factor into what we should be doing.
      • dannylewis, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Stradenko: Don't worry, I make faaaar less than that per year. I sure do hope you don't negate your argument by responding to my post at work. Shouldn't you be the one fired then? Unless your job involves browsing digg and posting comments.

        The only thing that is new in my notepads are the staples, the rest is scrap that would otherwise occupy a landfill. I'm not using new paper, the paper is already considered refuse.
  • beetyjoose, on 05/29/2008, -2/+5I feel like there should be some hemp worked into this list. A little pot could only help the work place.
  • Jasper710, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Just quit your job
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1yeah no *****, if that doesn't help then die, and be sure to kill your kids first.... do it for the environment!
  • dagorret, on 05/29/2008, -0/+7I would add:

    a) Do not smoke
    b) Set the screen saver (with key, of course)
    c) Open the windows and use sunlight
    d) Take decaffeinated coffee (health metal is part of the environment)
    • aensues, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6c) is one that is probably the hardest to do, but what's even more maddening is seeing some of the administrators at the building I work at, with their window offices on miraculously sunny days, having the flourescent lighting on and closing the blinds, even when there wouldn't be any glare on their computer! I would kill to be working in an office room that had natural lighting and they're not even making use of it!
      • TheOtherOne135, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1I work in a big building where two sides (unfortunately, I'm in the opposite corner) have windows. Management has sent out a couple of emails so far saying that it's a requirement that the blinds be kept shut during the summer - apparently, controlling the temperature when one side of the building is getting that much sunlight is a problem.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/29/2008, -0/+7decaffeinated coffee is one of the worst prodcuts on the planet. Think how much of the evironment we could save if we didn't bother making it at all.
    • speedk0re, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3i bet you drink O'Douls too...
    • Balloondoggies, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2b) set the screen saver?

      How is that helping? so instead of showing your unlocked desktop your monitor is now displaying your Garfield screen saver that requires a password....yea, that will save a few trees...
    • c0baltfish, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1c is debatable. If it's really hot it's better to block off direct sunlight instead of turning on the AC.
    • wipis, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1Take away my coffee and you will pollute the air even more, because I'll burn the building down Milton style.
    • johnn11238, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Most coffee is decaff'd using toxic chemicals. And since when is a little caffeine bad for you??
  • follower64, on 05/29/2008, -6/+4#10 is not a good idea. First of all the those bulbs contain mercury, and if one breaks, you have a serious clean up problem on your hands. Mercury becomes a vapor, so you have to evacuate the whole building to let it air out. Also, if it lands on carpet, you have to cut out all carpet within a five foot radius of the break. Second the bulbs produce light by blinking 60 times a second. This creates severe problems for people sensitive to flashing light and those prone to migraines. Finally, the bulbs are five times more expensive than regular ones, and considering the number of light bulbs used in a standard office building, I don't think replacing all the bulbs would be a financially sound move.
    Oh and about renewable energy sources... Nuclear power is a terrific option. The amount of nuclear waste produced in one year by a single power plant can fit under a desk. Plus, if you want to look at it's "carbon footprint" by comparing the carbon output to the energy it produces, it's negative. That's right, the carbon footprint of a nuclear power plant is negative.
    • socialpyramid, on 05/29/2008, -1/+5CFLs have a fraction of the mercury of, say, thermometers. You can now buy even lower mercury ones, and the light is getting better. http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-frien ...

      There's no data to support the hypothesis that CFLs cause migraines. http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1255/

      LEDs are much better anyway, they just still cost more.
    • ricksite, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Nearly all offices already use fluorescent tubes which also contain mercury. Using CFLs would extend this to replace bulbs in desk lamps, etc... Also, older fluorescent ballasts would flicker at 60hz. Newer electronic ballasts use a much higher frequency.
    • cha5e, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Your monitor refreshes at 60Hz, also. Or 75, etc.
      I thought only light flashing at like 3Hz was considered dangerous (for people w/ epilepsy)?
    • dynamisch, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0follower64. based on this post, i see that you are aptly named. you'll regurgitate anything the right asks you to, won't you? you're spending too much time listening to fox news and rush limbaugh. they are stupid. stop it.

      nuclear power IS efficient and an option in terms of reduction of carbon footprints, unless you can truly examine the expense, travel, material, and manpower it takes to effectively manage that desk-size chuck of spent fuel rods which will pretty much never stop being toxic. has that study been done?

      according to this article (the first one i found): http://tinyurl.com/6ch2he

      Although nuclear power stations generate negligible carbon emissions, nuclear power should not be considered as a low-carbon technology. Extracting uranium in particular is a carbon-intensive activity, especially given the poor quality of uranium ore that is available. Transporting, decommissioning and waste disposal also contribute towards nuclear’s carbon footprint. Accurate figures for this are elusive [...]

      finally, it is NOT "renewable." get a dictionary. it is a relatively short-term "solution."
  • DaDrake, on 05/29/2008, -8/+4Be nice if environmentalist ended their carbon footprint through suicide =)
  • Thomaschaaf, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1massage devices I love the idea!
  • jabberw0cky, on 05/29/2008, -2/+4No. 6 - powering off your computer => I have actually heard that it is better to leave it on than power cycle it, that power cycling actually consumes *more* power than if you were just to leave it on. Anyone know for sure what the truth is?
    • Angelspit, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4There is no way that turning a computer on could consume more power than leaving it on standy for 12-16 hours. That's similar to the old urban legend that had us believe that leaving the lights on was better than turning then on and off as we moved from one room to the other.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4Yeah, there is no way, unless your computer has to cylce a 200hp electric motor to shutdown and startup for some reason.... but I haven't seen that setup in PC World yet.
      • marx2k, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1They were able to drop that feature from Vista just before release
    • jabberw0cky, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1Yeah, seems the threshold is about 2 hours before it makes sense to turn off your computer if you're not using it (http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/appl ... ... but it would be interesting to add up all of the time lost in the mornings waiting for computers to boot up and all of the other devices in the office that would get used more while people were waiting.
      • ricksite, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3On a mac, you can schedule a time for your computer to boot up. Set it for 5 minutes before you get to work and it will be ready when you get there.
    • ricksite, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Many people won't want to turn their computers off but you can achieve considerable savings by optimizing the energy settings on every computer in the office. (Turn monitor off after 5min, etc...)
    • marx2k, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Lots of companies will suggest you leave your comp on. After-hours is when a lot of updates are pushed to workstations. Personally I don't see why workstations can't check a central repository for updates and auto-update at startup... but that's simply not how most businesses do it :/
      • ricksite, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Wake on LAN could also be setup.
      • maestrooscuro, on 05/29/2008, -0/+0We used to use an auto-update at startup system but it slowed everything to a crawl, whether there were updates or not. What I would like is to have a system that updates computers that can be set to do so on specific days, so we could ask employees to leave their machines on say two nights a week and off the rest of the time.
      • TheOtherOne135, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Don't know how/why it's different here, but at this job the IT folks will regularly send out reminders that we have to turn our computers *off* when we leave in order for the updates to install correctly when we boot up in the morning. Technically, we're supposed to turn it off every night.
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/29/2008, -14/+7The greatest environmental terrorists are the terrorist United States Government!
    No greater polluter or destroyer of the earth than the terrorist United States Government!

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    Where's the evidence that kerosene fires melted steel?
    How did the huge molten pools of metal get under the twin towers and building 7?
    9-11 was an inside job! 9-11 official story was a lie! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!

    The elections are rigged, unsecure voting machines & ballots!

    Terrorist United States Government mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.
    • jisrael, on 05/29/2008, -2/+3dugg up for that amazing tinfoil hat you've made for yourself
    • usgovterrorists, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2The U.S. Army now admits that it secretly dumped 64 million pounds of nerve and mustard agents into the sea, along with 400,000 chemical-filled bombs, land mines and rockets and more than 500 tons of radioactive waste - either tossed overboard or packed into the holds of scuttled vessels.

      Hundreds of dolphins washed ashore in Virginia and New Jersey shorelines in 1987 with burns similar to mustard gas exposure.
    • LeonidasStokely, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1So you've progressed from the political stories to environmental ones as well?

      What are you gonna serve that copy pasta with next? Oh, wait, probably a few slices of baloni (sp)
    • usgovterrorists, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Destruction: More than 1,820 tons of radio active nuclear waste uranium were exploded into Iraq alone in the form of armor piercing rounds and bunker busters (also known as dirty bombs), representing the worlds worst man made ecological disaster ever. 64 kg of uranium were used in the Hiroshima bomb. The U.S. Iraq Nuclear Holocaust by mass represents between fourteen and twenty eight thousand Hiroshima’s from a uranium poisoning perspective. In Hiroshima 70 thousand died from the blast and 70 thousand died from uranium poisoning. The nuclear waste the U.S. has exploded into the Middle East will continue killing for billions of years and could wipe out a third of life on earth. Winds can and will blow the uranium dust from the U.S. weapons around the world. Gulf War Veterans and civilians who have ingested the uranium will continue to die off from uranium poisoning over a number of decades.
  • leerayIG88, on 05/29/2008, -9/+2I never poweroff my computer. It's been on 24/7 for the past 3 months and i'm using Windows XP SP3.
  • o0joshua0o, on 05/29/2008, -0/+7I guess I'd better quit my job with the strip-mining company.
  • chopsky, on 05/29/2008, -9/+4People, reduce your paper consumption and you're going to reduce the amount of trees.
    More paper consumed = more trees planted.
    Supply and demand!
    • Balloondoggies, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1Does it make it true the more times you post this on the same story?
    • TheOtherOne135, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1It's the wrong kind of trees. Paper companies plant "quick grow" trees. They're not as good for environmental purposes as the old-growth trees that are being cut down.
  • coleki, on 05/29/2008, -5/+2Oh! It's a good thing that "NOT" in the title is in all caps... I almost thought this was the "Top 10 Ways To Screw Up The Environment At Work" story. That was a close one!
    • c0baltfish, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1Who needs a guide to screw up the environment?
      • coleki, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1Elevation of my joke: 35,000 ft.
        Elevation of the top of your head: 6 ft.
      • c0baltfish, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1I could say the same thing about my joke as well I suppose.
  • BridgeBurner, on 05/29/2008, -3/+2It amazes me the number of computers that were left on at my previous job at [very-large-game-developer/publisher] . Hundreds of computers left on over night. Very sad...
    • deepcore, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Probably a reason for this like patch management (e.g sending out security patches nightly), virus scanning etc.

      Many companies has this as a policy to leave the computers on.
      • BridgeBurner, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1If the IT department can't figure out how to roll these out when the computer is booted up in the morning then they aren't much of a IT department. I'd much rather have an employee go grab a cup of coffee in the morning after powering on their computer, while it updates, than have a couple hundred, 250-watt-power-supply-packing, computers run over night. IT departments need to get on board with energy conservation in the office, they are wasting a ton of power and money.
        • deepcore, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Thats not the problem, the problem is that people start to complain pretty fast if they have to wait more than 10 seconds for something to finish on the computer. Trust me I know! Also add to the fact that windows patching usually requires rebooting.
  • anditwasgood, on 05/29/2008, -4/+2I don't care anymore.
  • happyhead7, on 05/29/2008, -3/+1Best thing you can do for the environment in the workplace is to commit suicide and take 10 others with you. Imagine how many carbon footprints you'd save with 11 less people polluting the world?
  • bottlesandcans, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1The best way to not screw it up? Don't go to work.
  • Dev17, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1"The average car burns 12 liters of gas in one hour"

    I don't believe it. Doesn't sound plausible. Unless somebody can cite such a claim from a reliable source. I don't think the average car costs at least €10/hour to run in Europe.
    • cha5e, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Hmm...let's see...to turn that into stupid American units that's about 3 gallons. Figure the average car gets 35mpg...it would thus take 105 miles to burn 3 gallons of gas. The average car doesn't go 105 miles in the average hour. So yeah, I'm right there with you - I don't believe it either.
      • bearda, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2That doesn't sound as bad as it could. 35 mpg for the average car sounds pretty high to me. Granted, European cars tend to get a lot better gas mileage, but good old Ford Taurus got around 20 mpg combined city/highway. 60 miles to burn 3 gallons of gas. 60 miles an hour is more than plausable.
        • cha5e, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Hmm...okay, guess I'm a little out of touch on what mpg an average car gets. My car (1999 VW Jetta TDI) gets 47 on the highway, which is towards the high end, and my wife's SUV (2002 Honda CR-V) gets 24 on the highway, which I assumed was towards the low end since it's an SUV, so I just kind of assumed that the average would be about in the middle of those 2 numbers. I also failed to consider city miles, simply because 99% of my own driving is on the highway. But from Wikipedia:

          An average North American mid-size car travels 27 mpg (US) (9 L/100 km) highway, 21 mpg (US) (11 L/100 km) city; a full-size SUV usually travels 13 mpg (US) (18 L/100 km) city and 16 mpg (US) (15 L/100 km) highway. Pickup trucks vary considerably; whereas a 4 cylinder-engined light pickup can achieve 28 mpg (8 L/100 km), a V8 full-size pickup with extended cabin only travels 13 mpg (US) (18 L/100 km) city and 15 mpg (US) (15 L/100 km) highway.
        • TheOtherOne135, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Actually, my 2006 Taurus got right about 27 miles to the gallon, depending on traffic. Unfortunately, it got totalled a couple of weeks ago (just bought it last July - sob) . . . . The 2007 Taurus I replaced it with seems to be about the same.
      • tschau, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Once you consider that your "average car gets 35mpg" statement is wrong, it's really not that far off. Maybe a little, but it's fairly close. 35MPG is the CAFE standards goal by 2020, but we'll see if it happens.
    • cr42yr1ch, on 05/29/2008, -0/+130 miles per gallon
      6.7 miles per litre

      1 hour at 50 miles per hour
      50 miles
      7.5 litres of petrol

      £1 per litre of petrol
      £7.50 per hour

      $1 per litre of petrol
      $7.50 per hour

      €1.30 per litre of petrol
      €9.50 per hour
    • Dev17, on 05/29/2008, -0/+11 Liter will get you 9.2 miles.
      5 Liters will get you 46.3 miles.Which is approx 50 miles.
      Lets say a car travels on average 50mph.
      Still only 5 Liters not near the 12 Liters as stated. Which is € 6.50

      This is all assumed that the average car uses 35mpg. It's obviously an exaggerated figure.
  • Lucas123, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4My employer is currenty reviewing the telecomute policy. While about half of our employees have to work remotely, the ones who live within 45 min. or so of work come every day. We're looking into allowing folks to work from home two to three days a week. There's a big gas, electrical and water savings right there.
    • ajstallones, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1How do they keep track of your time when you telecomute? You don't use paper do you!?!
      • Lucas123, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1No. We don't punch a clock here. We're simply required to accomplish our jobs, which in my company's case is publishing. There are no strict working hours, other than putting in 9 hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
  • chewyrunt, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2have to disagree with #1 - increasing the amount of paper we generate helps reduce CO2 overall: 10) turn trees into paper 20) bury paper in landfills (a form of carbon sequestration) 30) plant more trees 40) goto 10
    • marx2k, on 05/29/2008, -2/+0But... then you just fill our landfills quicker.
      • Tweekster, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1It is paper, it biodegrades back to soil so who cares.
        • marx2k, on 05/29/2008, -0/+0Not in a dry tomb landfill it doesn't
  • hgrave23, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Who uses old time cards anyways?!
  • shrewd1983, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1Leave your computer on, turning it off and on increases the risk of damaging components. Modern day computers at idle (depending on the system/setup) take less power then a 100W light bulb.
  • jcaino, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3#11: Switch to LCD monitors if you have not already.
    #12: Turn off lights in areas that aren't being used.
  • patdryburgh, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4#9 - Get rid of water bottles.

    I disagree with this idea. The reason is that while I agree too many bottles are needlessly thrown away, there are other options for them.

    The Water School (www.thewaterschool.org) is using water bottles and a process called "SODIS" in which water is left in the sun in a recycled water bottle where it is purified and safe for drinking. This process can only occur within 35 degrees of the equator, which is where most water-born diseases occur.

    I have emailed the organization about whether companies setting up a recycling program that sends bottles to the organization would benefit them. I will comment again when I hear back.

    Pat
  • jasdf, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2#5 must be wrong, laptops USE 10% the energy of a desktop, not 90%.
  • cubicledrone, on 05/29/2008, -1/+0Tax credits for telecommuting.

    Of course the rat ***** lying cheat phone-flipping hairpiece long-sleeve-dress-shirt-in-July powerpoint-***** asscracks in middle management will never allow people to telecommute because its much easier to make yourself look important if you insist that everyone be at their desk at 9AM sharp so you can call a meeting about how important you are.

    So the best way for a gray-assed cubicle slave to help the environment is to go to that meeting, rip a fart that fades the chair upholstery after finishing off the last of the grande enchilada plate (with your hands), wipe your mouth on the bosses tie, then slam the door as you leave. That way you won't have to drive to work any more and you can start being productive.
    • Tweekster, on 05/29/2008, -0/+0My boss eventually stopped asking me to come in at 8:30.
      He realized I was not a morning person and pretty much accepted in defeat that it wont ever happen. My boss is a good guy.
  • Mr.Gone, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1It's a small cube. Stop farting... JUSTIN!!
  • BlueSkyfish, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Instead of buying 20 crappy computers and 20 monitors, just so your employees can use word, send email, etc, just get 5 decent computers, 20 LCD monitors and use virtualization software.
  • Rikkochet, on 05/29/2008, -3/+410. Use energy-efficient lighting

    Most offices are not owned by their tenants. They are owned and maintained by landlords and managed through a holding company. You will get what you get.

    9. Get rid of water bottles

    I don't know of a single office that doesn't have a water cooler. Water jugs are refilled by the supplier. Complain about the paper cups, not the bottles.

    7. Join a carpool

    Completely impractical - I've tried. If my commute is 20 minutes and I have to go 10 minutes out of my way to pick someone else up, I'm going to resist. Now add the complexities of who pays for parking, who pays for gas, ... Improve mass transit.

    6. Power off your computer

    Standby draws virtually no power, seriously. If you're actually putting your PC into standby you're doing well. Those extra watts your office uses in a YEAR so that your IT department can actually push updates and every employee doesn't lose 5 minutes of productivity every morning waiting for the PC to boot up.

    5. Use a laptop

    Underpowered. Noisy. Uncomfortable to type on. Generate a lot of heat that dries out the hands and blows uncomfortably. Slower than a desktop. More costly to upgrade and replace. Should I continue?

    4. Keep a keg under your desk

    Don't pad your lists with silly things. Just make it 9 items.

    3. Recharge your batteries

    Except that rechargeable batteries don't last half as long as alkalines. Productivity gets shattered when people are wandering around with their dead cordless mouse. The better answer here is DON'T USE BATTERIES. You sit at a DESK. With an OUTLET. You don't need anything portable.

    2. Turn off the AC and wear lighter-weight fabrics

    Employers are required to create a comfortable atmosphere for their employees. Don't you DARE try and tell me what to wear because you want the office to be hot.

    1. Use paper wisely

    Real companies keep a paper trail with intelligent filing systems. Paper is necessary. Deal with it.


    I'm all for the green movement, but can we please get some voices in it that aren't just hippies working in a home office trying to understand how the world works?
    • tschau, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1You're all for the green movement? Because it really sounds a lot like you're all for self-justification and excuse making.
  • diadem2, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3Turn off the AC? Yeah... because light fabrics stop heat stroke. Permanent organ damage for me and death for the elderly..... sounds like a ***** brilliant idea.
  • kaeves, on 05/29/2008, -1/+4Also not having microclimates in the office. Where I work we spend energy running the AC to cool the office. Some days half of the women here run space heaters under their desks to fight the AC. It's a needless waste.
    • 1337chic, on 05/29/2008, -1/+0I'm one of those women. It makes far more sense for them to not turn the AC down to 64 degrees. If you are literally sitting at your desk all day never really getting up (other than to waste time) like most other people in IT there is no reason for the AC to be that freaking low.
  • wbubel, on 05/29/2008, -1/+012. Think Mummification instead of Burial or Cremation.
  • davidrools, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1I only use one paper town after washing my hands. Since there's no choice other than your pants, I try to minimize. All it takes is shaking them off really good, then using every bit of dry part on the paper towel. You know when you use two or three paper towels, the stuff you throw in the garbage is still mostly dry.
  • Chahrlie5, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1They don't pay me enough to care
  • ColonelTribune, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2If everyone were allowed to work from home, they wouldn't have to drive. Now THERE'S a start.
  • slogged, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Please don't take your laptop into the bathroom, other people may have to touch it too.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.