This is a fantastic point, but Zoom would never have been a candidate for me personally for several reasons:
- As important as reducing our use of fossil fuels is, using less energy is not a solution to the problem of a non-renewable energy system. In that sense, it wouldn't meet the criteria for someone who wants to work on a climate solution.
- While WFH drastically reduces auto emissions, it increases gas & electricity use in the home.
- Zoom is not a mission-driven company and (to my knowledge) their KPIs are not directed at or correlated with their GHG footprint; I would think they see themselves as productivity software, not climate software.
- If Zoom never existed we would be working from home at the same rate, using any of hundreds of other video conferencing apps. In carbon offset terms, their impact does not provide additionality.
- As important as reducing our use of fossil fuels is, using less energy is not a solution to the problem of a non-renewable energy system. In that sense, it wouldn't meet the criteria for someone who wants to work on a climate solution.
- While WFH drastically reduces auto emissions, it increases gas & electricity use in the home.
- Zoom is not a mission-driven company and (to my knowledge) their KPIs are not directed at or correlated with their GHG footprint; I would think they see themselves as productivity software, not climate software.
- If Zoom never existed we would be working from home at the same rate, using any of hundreds of other video conferencing apps. In carbon offset terms, their impact does not provide additionality.