On the face of it, it sounds like a straightforward question – if people are travelling in to work less, then surely they will produce fewer carbon dioxide emissions. After some recent studies done by the World Wildlife Foundation, however, it’s astonishing to see just how much of a difference we could make if we all learnt to work from home, and make the best use of technology instead of stubbornly continuing to work “the old fashioned way.”
The WWF studies looked at two separate flexible working trends – telecommuting (working from home using tools like cloud-based file sharing and email), and video conferencing, and tried to determine what the impact would be if more businesses embraced these ways of working.
Videoconferencing “a massive energy saving”
In the first study, which looked at videoconferencing (specifically the use of it in preference to flying your executives all over America, or internationally, to attend board meetings), found that there was quite a big difference to be made.
Videoconferencing has come a long way – there are even small companies now which will rent out a videoconferencing room, equipped with cameras, screens, and high speed broadband connections. All it takes to dial in is a laptop, a webcam and a decent internet connection. These setups still have some way to go to be able to fully replace in-person meetings, but they are getting there fast.
Japanese telecoms company NTT recently did a study which found that the average videoconference created around 400kg of carbon emissions, whereas flying those same people on domestic flights to a single destination (and back again) created a staggering 2,000kg of emissions.
You might think, “That’s not much more”, but only 10% of the 400kg generated during videoconferences comes from running the equipment. The other 360kg comes from “rebound activities” – people doing other things when they would have been flying. Videoconferencing as an activity generates a stunning 2% of the total carbon emissions of flying your executives to a business meeting.
Telecommuting – Resistance may be “blocking opportunities to cut carbon footprint”
Many companies are embracing telecommuting, even if it is only one day a week. For their second study, WWF first defined two scenarios. The first they called the “carbon world” – the world as it runs now, only with more people in it in 2030. The second world, the “smart world” has embraced telecommuting (if not entirely).
The difference, they calculated, is around 1 billion tons of CO2 emissions a year by 2030. That’s the current combined emissions of the UK and Italy saved by telecommuting. In 2050 it’s 3.5 billion tons – which is the entire EU’s carbon footprint, or half of America’s.
Still Some Resistance by Business
In a recent survey by Treehugger, a leading environmentalist blog, 43% of people said they would take a pay cut if allowed to telecommute. This proves that there is willingness to change amongst workers, but it’s the employers who need to step up and lead transformation.