Is Telecommuting Really Environmentally Friendly?
There is a popular assumption that telecommuting is good for the environment. The reasoning is that people use lots of energy (primarily fossil fuels) going to and coming back from their offices every day. If people worked at home, then they would not be using this energy. Thus, telecommuting is good for the environment.
Self-professed Luddite Sharon Astyk questions this assumption (in the middle of a longer article asking whether more technology is really improving people’s lives, makes people happier, etc):
But the problem is that all those telecommuters would be buying more and better technology for their homes in order to be able to do the work they normally do at the office, and spending more time overnighting documents, heating their own homes, and doing all sorts of other things. Now it might well turn into a net gain - you never know. But it is worth noting, for example that recent evidence suggests that all of us on our computers are a huge global warming problem - as bad as flying all over the planet.
Well, to address the issue directly, there is at least one study released recently which seems to say that overall, telecommuting will result in a 20% reduction in energy usage. Although Sharon is right in saying that a telecommuter (or more normally, their employer) will tend to buy more equipment for their home-office and will spend more money lighting, heating and cooling their home than they would have had they been at work, it is important to remember that every computer on in the telecommuter’s home office is one less computer on in the business office (likewise with lighting, heating and cooling costs). There is a direct trade-off between the two. The energy savings comes from the personal transportation to work (saving an hour-plus sitting in a car, burning gasoline) that you are not doing.
Though it is appropriate and praiseworthy to question common assumptions regarding energy-savings (as well as assumptions that technology makes people happier, causes less stress, improves the world, etc), in this case, I think that it is not really accurate to say that telecommuting will not contribute to less energy consumption.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, June 12th, 2007 by Yaakov Ellis and is filed under Environment.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Tags: energy savings, fossil fuels, gasoline, global warming, luddite, telecommuting
Submit:
digg |
del.icio.us |
Reddit |
Newsvine |
Netscape |
Sphere
Thanks for the commentary and link to the study. I’d note, for example, thought that in the 1990s, we saw studies that suggested we would reduce paper waste by 25%. Didn’t happen. We saw claims that business air travel would fall because of teleconferencing and email - instead it rose dramatically, so much so that air travel growth (much of it driven by business) is set now to outstrip all gains made in greenhouse reduction by Kyoto (if, in fact, we actually meet any of the targets, which seems unlikely) and all subsequent proposed reductions likely to be in place.
I don’t actually have a strong opinion on this one - what I think is important to note is that generally speaking, claims made for energy reduction technologies have either not occurred, or enabled that energy simply to be spent elsewhere - they haven’t resulted in net emissions or energy consumption reductions. I find it unlikely that, for example, businesses won’t want a lot of computers on site in many cases for those “special” onsite projects. It isn’t at all clear that we’ll be making a concerted reduction.
Again, I’m not opposed to telecommuting policies - I think they have other potential advantages. But I think the notion that they are an environmental panacea is probably wrong.
Again, thanks for the commentary.
Sharon
June 12th, 2007 at 17:23Sharon - Thanks for the comment.
I agree with you that there are lots of predictions and claims of environmental gains as a result of new-technology adoption that are exaggerated and never come true (and in some cases, have the opposite affect from that which is claimed by the technology’s proponents). In this case, there are two factors which have to be addressed: energy spent building the tools for the work environment (ie: computers) and energy spent on commuting.
It seems fairly clear that on average, the costs (both monetarily as well as in environmental terms) for transportation will always be lower for telecommuters than it will be for those who travel to the office every day (and this will have an even larger affect over the years, as gas prices continue to rise and commutes continue to get longer). In this aspect, telecommuting is definitely an energy-saver.
Regarding computer equipment - This is based purely on anecdotal evidence, but with powerful laptops available for almost the same cost as an equivalently-powerful desktop computer, most people who are telecommuting will not have a computer in the office and a computer at home. They will have one computer that they use both in the home and in the office (even in today’s networked world, most people customize their computers as they customize any other part of their work environment, and cannot just start working efficiently on the company desktop computer set aside for “special onsite projects”). And even if a company would set aside a special work area for teleworkers who are in the office for a day, at a company that has a significant number of telecommuters (as is the trend), this will not be a on-to-one ratio of equipment to workers. So even though it is good to question these claims and assumptions, in this case I would challenge the assertion that telecommuting will cause a significant increase in equipment expenditures, production and associated costs.
And as far as calling telecommuting an “environmental panacea” - I think that this may be a little bit exaggerated. I think that telecommuting is something that will cause less consumption of and spending on energy and fuel, and combined with other real solutions and efforts can lead to significant reductions in fossil fuels and global warming-related factors. But it is not the answer.
June 12th, 2007 at 18:01Hi Yaakov - Thanks for the helpful response. I have seen telecommuting discussed as a major *solution* to environmental concerns, and that’s what I’m mostlyl responding to.
I agree with you about laptops, but that raises another issue - laptops break comparatively easily, and when components break, the whole thing often has to be replaced. Battery units for laptops are a serious environmental concern already. And many people I know who work from home (I do, my husband does part of the time, many of my friends do, as do many family members) have desktops *and* laptops because the laptops are simply not as comfortable for long term use.
Again, it isn’t that I want to see people driving to work, or that I’m opposed to telecommuting. Mostly, I think the solution is deeper than that - fewer people working fewer hours and doing more subsistence production (growing food, making things instead of buying, making do instead of needing). Telecommuting may indeed operate as a bridge there.
Sharon
June 13th, 2007 at 16:22