It's not that techies as a group are libertarian but that there are many powerful techies who are libertarian.

They don't work environmentally. Move the offices closer to where they live or live closer to work. That's like arguing that improving plane efficiency is good for those who want to live in Malibu and commute to Mountain View. Mountain View to SF eats up a LOT of gas. It's that Google and other companies benefit from groups being in the same office.

Edit: the reality is that those buses are a perk because otherwise far fewer people would be able to live in SF since commuting to Mountain View, Cupertino, etc during rush hour takes untenable amounts of time. Thus to compete for tech workers who want to live in SF, companies are choosing to provide these buses.

I am claiming that Google and other companies are doing what is economically expedient for them.

Libertarian techies: Peter Thiel, Marc Andressen, Ron Conway, that VC pushing the division of California. I also don't think that Larry Page is a liberal for good or ill. How is having your own private jet environmentally friendly? One flight on that thing will pollute more than his Prius will in its lifetime.

Prior to the buses very few people were willing to commute from SF to Mountain View. They had to choose to live closer. The buses very greatly expanded the distance. Almost everyone who graduated from Berkeley who went to work in the Valley moved there. Commuting from Emeryville would draw crazed expressions. You're probably pushing 50 miles each way.

Edit: Before the company shuttles picked you up at the Caltrain stop near the office. Now the company shuttle picks you up near your home bypassing Caltrain.

Are you talking about techies or rich entrepreneurs? These are quite different groups of people. I work/talk to many well known techies, and none of them have libertarian tendencies; quite the opposite sans the occasional non-libertarian conservative.

Emission from a jet is significant, but gets diluted over a wider range. The problem with pollution is mainly concentration and failure to disperse, and become absorbed (carbon dioxide and other pollutants occur naturally, but concentrations of them are a big problem, especially when inversions occur).

Those kids at Berkeley would probably never have worked at Google MV if they couldn't live in the city.

Some venture capitalists and some entrepreneurs. But those include some who haven't hit it big yet.

How much pollution does a 737 emit on takeoff and landing? That sure isn't being dispersed. Try parking near SJ airport for a few days. You'll find your car coated.

Like I said, it's for economic expediency... A perk to attract workers but with potential environmental cost.

Prior to the buses, far more tech jobs were in the valley, so techies pretty much had to move or commute. Buses not only allow people to commute rather than moving, they allow valley companies to compete for people who would otherwise take jobs in SF because that's where they want to live.

Are you claiming that Sergey is a libertarian? If I ever meet a powerful libertarian techy, I'll believe the idea that powerful libertarian techies actually exist at all.

The fully loaded buses work environmentally on a per-seat/person basis, especially if one group is travelling from one place to the other. It is probably less than if they were living in San Jose and commuting by car. You can always do better, but the buses make the commute environmentally reasonable if not ideal.

> That's like arguing that improving plane efficiency is good for those who want to live in Malibu and commute to Mountain View.

That's like arguing that taking the bus is bad since one could always walk, bike, or sleep in their office instead to reduce their impact even further.

As long as we are exchanging platitudes...