This is a huge factor that doesn't get the publicity it deserves. I work in a company currently led by a person who is very preachy about being "green" - i.e. she's a vegan who uses no plastic whenever possible, only shops at health food stores, uses her bike for commuting because she lives near her workplace, and so on.

But she's adamant that everybody needs to commute to the office 5 days a week, even developers, who often have to use a car. It doesn't help that the workplace is in area which is infamous for its traffic congestions (not as bad as LA but it happens regularly that going 15 miles from home to work will take 1h-2h).

Since her announcement that WFH will only be possible when the government is giving strong recommendations (to counter a pandemic wave for instance), I've lost most respect for her and her show-off "green" lifestyle. Especially because developers working at the office are often abused by clueless or unmotivated general staff who can't work the photo copier menu and think they can ask any "tech guy" who happens to be near.

Commuting costs money too. The article portrays paying for “focusing-as-a-service” as a negative, but it’s probably cheaper for a lot of people than paying the extra commuting costs to come in to the office. Seems like it could be a completely valid trade-off in a lot of circumstances.