Saving the environment by not commuting to work
Sarah Bunting, late of Television Without Pity, posted an interesting response on her blog this past week to the proposed ‘congestion tax’ for New York City. Essentially, she wants to know why people even need to go to work?
I can think of dozens of industries that either don’t require workers to physically appear at all, or could easily get by with telecommuting at least part-time, or split shifting — have employees choose their eight- or nine-hour workday, and come in then.
I’ve spent a lot of time looking at the idea of telecommuting or working from home as a strategy to keep your employees happy, but the environmental side is hugely important and relevant too. People look at congestion taxes like they have in London (and which I am in favour of, for the record) as a ‘green’ solution, but they’re only truly green if they’re getting people out of their cars, full stop. As long as businesses and organizations — and, to be fair, I’m only referring to certain industries here, where face-to-face interaction is not continuously required — require their employees to come in every day at set, specific, already-congested hours, there are always going to be people who will drive.
We desperately need to ask tough questions, and it starts with employers asking themselves why their employees need to be at work each and every day.
Sarah, again:
Again, I think trying to get people off the road is great. It’s good for the environment, it’s good for the remaining drivers’ stress levels — it’s a good idea. But as long as people still have to take their asses into a place of business, it isn’t going to have the dramatic effects the government probably expects.
The Environmental Impact
In “The Green Book,” authors Elizabeth Rogers and Thomas Kostigen found that workers commute an average of 10,000 miles per year and consume 67 billion gallons of gas. Telecommuting reduces vehicle miles traveled per year by more than 35 billion and saves almost 2 billion gallons of gas.
There is, of course, the argument that working-at-home is a zero-sum game, because energy is still used, just at home instead of at the office. And, unless you’re in a really specific probably creative industry, you still need to have the office, staffed and with lights & computers on. So, in effect, the world is having to power two workplaces (your home and the office) where it used to only have to power one.
This ignores technological advances, though. If the last ten years are any indication, we’re likely to see great strides in the efficiency of office technology — things like lights, computer monitors, printers, etc — while the car will still probably stick around as is. Sure, some people will drive hybrids, but the internal combustion engine is just not going to go away.
It’s far easier, and far cheaper, to make your home office energy efficient than it it is to really ‘green’ your commute.
Photo by _e.t. Licensed under Creative Commons
This entry was posted on Sunday, April 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm and is filed under At Work, Transportation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Michael Henreckson April 14th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Saving the environment . . .good point. Other advantages include decreased facility overhead for the companies, and of course decreased costs for the employees themselves. Can be good for the family life too.