The coronavirus pandemic has had a profound impact on the environmental emissions produced by society, with numerous maps illustrating the stark drop in air pollution since countries started to enact lockdown procedures in a bid to halt the spread of the virus.
The airline industry has been one of the hardest hit, with roughly 100,000 fewer flights made per day. Data from plane tracking service Flight Radar reveals a 55% fall in flights in the last week of March, compared to the same period last year.
A similarly seismic shift has come from the requirement that those who can work from home, should do so. Data from the UK’s Department for Transport reveals that travel is down significantly, with car travel down roughly 60%, bus travel down around 90%, and train and underground travel down nearly 100% compared to normal levels. This is because our travel habits have changed enormously, with recreational travel practically grounding to a halt, and travel to work down by 50% from normal levels.
Greener working
So the home working that so many of us are engaging in must be better for the planet, right? New research from the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions at the University of Sussex suggests things might not be so straightforward.
The study does indeed find that for many of us, home working can be significantly greener than our usual commute into the office, with home working reducing our personal emissions by up to 80% in some cases.
This is not the case for all of us however, and indeed, for some of us, working from home may actually increase our energy usage. This is largely because some of us can use our new found flexibility to increase our travel for recreation and other purposes, while also using more energy at home.
“While most studies conclude that teleworking can contribute energy savings, the more rigorous studies and those with a broader scope present more ambiguous findings,” the researchers explain. “Where studies include additional impacts, such as non-work travel or office and home energy use, the potential energy savings appear more limited – with some studies suggesting that, in the context of growing distances between the workplace and home, part-week teleworking could lead to a net increase in energy consumption.”
A permanent shift
The biggest danger, in terms of the energy costs of flexible working, come when we split between home and office throughout the week. By working partly from home, we can be encouraged to live further away from work, which then increases our commute when we do go into the office. Indeed, one study suggested that remote workers would often live up to 10 miles further from their office than those who commuted to work every day.
As such, the researchers believe the best environmental outcome comes when we spend our entire working week from home, and believe this could also help employers reduce their energy footprint as they can downsize their office space to reflect the change in work patterns.
It is, perhaps, important to note that the environmental savings gained from home working may nonetheless be rather modest, however. The authors note that one of the studies they analyzed found that working remotely four days per week resulted in a much lower fall in energy consumption than an improvement in car fuel efficiency of around 20% (which in itself is a not insignificant amount considering fuel efficiency has improved by around 57% in the last 100 years).
Lifecycle costs
Another factor to consider is the costs involved in the computers and other equipment used in the course of our work. The production of computers is normally very energy intensive, and involves various rare earth elements in their production, and energy-intensive processes, such as cloud storage, for their operation. These increasing energy costs can outweigh the savings we make from working from home.
That’s not to say that there aren’t environmental savings from home working, just that our work patterns are becoming increasingly complex, so it’s harder to track the direct savings from this change in work patterns.
“While the lockdown has clearly reduced energy consumption, only some of those savings will be achieved in more normal patterns of teleworking,” the researchers say. “To assess whether teleworking is really sustainable, we need to look beyond the direct impact on commuting and investigate how it changes a whole range of daily activities.”
The changes in pollution levels since the coronavirus lockdown have been stark, and I’m sure we’ve all noticed the reduction in traffic on our roads. It’s understandable, therefore, that we assume that our newfound remote working lifestyle is better for the environment, and the chances are that it very much is. It’s by no means certain, however, and the research provides a timely reminder of just how complex are energy needs are.
“A scenario after the threat of Coronavirus has cleared where workers will want the best of both worlds; retaining the freedom and flexibility they found from working from home but the social aspects of working at an office that they’ve missed out on during lockdown, will not deliver the energy savings the world needs,” the researchers conclude.
