Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Net Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050

So does this goal of zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 mean the thousands upon thousands of noncustomer facing employees will start not commuting to an office (after covid is over) across all the hubs? Or are all the thousands of people who drive to an office every day to talk on the phone to people in other cities going to continue to be asked to come to the office (and consume gas and pollution on our nation's highways)?

So does this goal also include retiring the corporate jets and riding the stage coach to big wig meetings or are they going to jet-pool jet-share on John Kerry's private jet to save carbon emissions?

So does this goal also include getting on board with countless other companies who have remote work policies for noncustomer facing people who work from home and aren't expected to waste gas and pollute driving back and forth to an office?

Asking for a friend here.

by
| 1730 views | | 10 replies (last March 12, 2021) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+19MtOaSv

10 replies (most recent on top)

Agenda 2030, New World Order...get ready...

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3tkp+19MtOaSv

Best way to reduce greenhouse gas is to cancel the townhalls, all that hot air by top execs is the #1 cause of climate change.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1lgp+19MtOaSv

It means less than nothing.

The IPCC started to claim that carbon emissions were leading to a new Ice Age in 1968, which happened to be at a Solar Minimum at that time. There was zero science for this. After 20 years of warming, in 1990, the IPCC started to claim that carbon emissions, now termed “greenhouse gasses”, were causing global warming. This happened at a Solar Maximum. There was no science to this.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1pvh+19MtOaSv

First off, we have corporate jets?!?
Secondly, zero emissions play: lay off everyone. Go out of business and just like that we’re at zero emissions. It’s a simple plan and we’re already half way there.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ahu+19MtOaSv

Actually, it has a lot to do with layoffs. 2021-2022 are all about expenses. They have targets, and the more they waste on this nonsense, the more people will have to go to make up the difference. So sure, they can spend a million $ to put solar panels on the roof of a big hub, but how many employees will have to be sacrificed to make it happen? Seems pretty clear that employees PR.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @kcd+19MtOaSv

Post ID: @qek+19MtOaSv

The whole topic has nothing to do with layoffs and is not particularly useful.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @imw+19MtOaSv

Could @tmr+19MtOaSv be less useful?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @qek+19MtOaSv

Hey, we can do this now by enabling more folks to continue to telecommute.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cns+19MtOaSv

OP - These are great points. Reducing the RE foot print should be part of the plan, but what about the Location Strategy?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cma+19MtOaSv

"Or are all the thousands of people who drive to an office every day to talk on the phone to people in other cities going to continue to be asked to come to the office (and consume gas and pollution on our nation's highways)?" - I guess you've never heard of public transport or electric vehicles.

"So does this goal also include retiring the corporate jets and riding the stage coach to big wig meetings or are they going to jet-pool jet-share on John Kerry's private jet to save carbon emissions?" - zoom meetings anyone?

"So does this goal also include getting on board with countless other companies who have remote work policies for noncustomer facing people who work from home and aren't expected to waste gas and pollute driving back and forth to an office?" - we already do that.

You seem to have stupid friends.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @tmr+19MtOaSv

Post a reply

: