ArcticDagger

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/9778976

Abstract

The disparity in environmental impacts across different countries has been widely acknowledged1,2. However, ascertaining the specific responsibility within the complex interactions of economies and consumption groups remains a challenging endeavour3,4,5. Here, using an expenditure database that includes up to 201 consumption groups across 168 countries, we investigate the distribution of 6 environmental footprint indicators and assess the impact of specific consumption expenditures on planetary boundary transgressions. We show that 31–67% and 51–91% of the planetary boundary breaching responsibility could be attributed to the global top 10% and top 20% of consumers, respectively, from both developed and developing countries. By following an effective mitigation pathway, the global top 20% of consumers could adopt the consumption levels and patterns that have the lowest environmental impacts within their quintile, yielding a reduction of 25–53% in environmental pressure. In this scenario, actions focused solely on the food and services sectors would reduce environmental pressure enough to bring land-system change and biosphere integrity back within their respective planetary boundaries. Our study highlights the critical need to focus on high-expenditure consumers for effectively addressing planetary boundary transgressions.

From the paper - definition of the top global consumers:

The global 10th percentile level of final demand is about US$27,000 per year, equivalent to the European average in 2017. The global 20th percentile level is about US$12,000 per year, comparable to the threshold of high-income countries defined by the United Nations in 2017.

Abstract

The disparity in environmental impacts across different countries has been widely acknowledged1,2. However, ascertaining the specific responsibility within the complex interactions of economies and consumption groups remains a challenging endeavour3,4,5. Here, using an expenditure database that includes up to 201 consumption groups across 168 countries, we investigate the distribution of 6 environmental footprint indicators and assess the impact of specific consumption expenditures on planetary boundary transgressions. We show that 31–67% and 51–91% of the planetary boundary breaching responsibility could be attributed to the global top 10% and top 20% of consumers, respectively, from both developed and developing countries. By following an effective mitigation pathway, the global top 20% of consumers could adopt the consumption levels and patterns that have the lowest environmental impacts within their quintile, yielding a reduction of 25–53% in environmental pressure. In this scenario, actions focused solely on the food and services sectors would reduce environmental pressure enough to bring land-system change and biosphere integrity back within their respective planetary boundaries. Our study highlights the critical need to focus on high-expenditure consumers for effectively addressing planetary boundary transgressions.

From the paper - definition of the top global consumers:

The global 10th percentile level of final demand is about US$27,000 per year, equivalent to the European average in 2017. The global 20th percentile level is about US$12,000 per year, comparable to the threshold of high-income countries defined by the United Nations in 2017.

"

Det ser ud til, at der endnu ikke er godt videnskabeligt belæg for, at forbud mod mobiltelefoner skulle gøre noget særligt godt for eleverne. Men mangel på evidens er selvfølgelig heller ikke bevis for det modsatte

Fra artiklen:

Resultaterne er umiddelbart logiske, siger Jesper Aagaard. Han peger på samme forklaring, som de svenske forskere skriver om i deres videnskabelige artikel: at man i lande som Sverige, Norge og Danmark har digitaliseret undervisningen i en sådan grad, at det ikke har nogen mærkbar effekt, hvis man blot fjerner én skærm, men beholder de andre.

»Det er blevet udbredt at forbyde mobiltelefoner i skolen, men hvad med de laptops, som stadig står lige foran eleverne? Dem kan de vel også bruge til at gå på sociale medier eller til at spille spil med,« siger lektoren

Fra artiklen:

I 2019 samlede elever også plastaffald i naturen. Der fandt de 31,6 cigaretskod per indsamling. I år er det steget til 37 skod per indsamling.

...

»Danskerne bliver ved med at smide skod i naturen. Tallene viser tydeligt, at den bløde lovgivning om cigaretskod ikke virker. Der skal hårdere lovgivning til a la forbuddet mod plastsugerør.«

»Cigaretfiltre har i forvejen ingen positiv sundhedseffekt, tværtimod. Filtrene blev indført i 1960’erne for at øge salget af cigaretter blandt kvinder. Filtrene er plastaffald, tilmed giftigt plastaffald,« siger Kristian Syberg, der er lektor ved Institut for Naturvidenskab og Miljø på Roskilde Universitet.

Og her er et link til den fulde pressemeddelelse fra Masseeksperimentet: https://masseeksperiment.dk/resultater-fra-masseeksperiment/

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/9189541

Abstract:

Working from home has become standard for employees with a university degree. The most common scheme, which has been adopted by around 100 million employees in Europe and North America, is a hybrid schedule, in which individuals spend a mix of days at home and at work each week1,2. However, the effects of hybrid working on employees and firms have been debated, and some executives argue that it damages productivity, innovation and career development3,4,5. Here we ran a six-month randomized control trial investigating the effects of hybrid working from home on 1,612 employees in a Chinese technology company in 2021–2022. We found that hybrid working improved job satisfaction and reduced quit rates by one-third. The reduction in quit rates was significant for non-managers, female employees and those with long commutes. Null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working did not affect performance grades over the next two years of reviews. We found no evidence for a difference in promotions over the next two years overall, or for any major employee subgroup. Finally, null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working had no effect on the lines of code written by computer-engineer employees. We also found that the 395 managers in the experiment revised their surveyed views about the effect of hybrid working on productivity, from a perceived negative effect (−2.6% on average) before the experiment to a perceived positive one (+1.0%) after the experiment. These results indicate that a hybrid schedule with two days a week working from home does not damage performance.

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/9189541

Abstract:

Working from home has become standard for employees with a university degree. The most common scheme, which has been adopted by around 100 million employees in Europe and North America, is a hybrid schedule, in which individuals spend a mix of days at home and at work each week1,2. However, the effects of hybrid working on employees and firms have been debated, and some executives argue that it damages productivity, innovation and career development3,4,5. Here we ran a six-month randomized control trial investigating the effects of hybrid working from home on 1,612 employees in a Chinese technology company in 2021–2022. We found that hybrid working improved job satisfaction and reduced quit rates by one-third. The reduction in quit rates was significant for non-managers, female employees and those with long commutes. Null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working did not affect performance grades over the next two years of reviews. We found no evidence for a difference in promotions over the next two years overall, or for any major employee subgroup. Finally, null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working had no effect on the lines of code written by computer-engineer employees. We also found that the 395 managers in the experiment revised their surveyed views about the effect of hybrid working on productivity, from a perceived negative effect (−2.6% on average) before the experiment to a perceived positive one (+1.0%) after the experiment. These results indicate that a hybrid schedule with two days a week working from home does not damage performance.

Abstract:

Working from home has become standard for employees with a university degree. The most common scheme, which has been adopted by around 100 million employees in Europe and North America, is a hybrid schedule, in which individuals spend a mix of days at home and at work each week1,2. However, the effects of hybrid working on employees and firms have been debated, and some executives argue that it damages productivity, innovation and career development3,4,5. Here we ran a six-month randomized control trial investigating the effects of hybrid working from home on 1,612 employees in a Chinese technology company in 2021–2022. We found that hybrid working improved job satisfaction and reduced quit rates by one-third. The reduction in quit rates was significant for non-managers, female employees and those with long commutes. Null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working did not affect performance grades over the next two years of reviews. We found no evidence for a difference in promotions over the next two years overall, or for any major employee subgroup. Finally, null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working had no effect on the lines of code written by computer-engineer employees. We also found that the 395 managers in the experiment revised their surveyed views about the effect of hybrid working on productivity, from a perceived negative effect (−2.6% on average) before the experiment to a perceived positive one (+1.0%) after the experiment. These results indicate that a hybrid schedule with two days a week working from home does not damage performance.

Det er måske lidt 'preaching to the choir', men jeg synes det er en ret vild hjemmeside

Via et Google Cloud computer vision-program (Google Vision API) laver hjemmesiden en tre afsnit lang og grundig beskrivelse af billedet, når det er uploadet.

Det er selvfølgelig udviklet som en form for reklame for Ente, men det er ikke desto mindre ret cool/skræmmende

Fra artiklen:

Da man indførte pebersprayen, var det nemlig også med troen på, at man ville mindske brugen af for eksempel stav, forklarer Adam Diderichsen. Men evalueringen fandt altså ikke nogen reduktion af andre former for magtanvendelse hos politiet, efter at man indførte pebersprayen i 2008.

»Hvis man tog argumentet alvorligt, så tog man skydevåbnet fra politiet for at erstatte det med strømpistolen. Det, vil jeg mene, er mere fornuftigt,« siger han.

Linket til evalueringen er her: https://doi.org/10.7146/ntfk.v100i1.70124

Der indgår en ret interessant figur:

Tirsdag gør Nordea det muligt for sine kunder at betale med et digitalt dankort i Apple Pay. ... I dag er det kun Danske Bank og Nordea, der understøtter det digitale dankort, men i en rundspørge foretaget af Politiken svarer en række banker, at de vil understøtte det digitale dankort fra 2025.

Det gælder Nykredit, Jyske Bank, Spar Nord, Arbejdernes Landsbank og Lån & Spar, der fortæller, at de vil lancere det digitale dankort i det nye år.