Is remote working good for the environment?


ByDr. Tim Sandle
November 26, 2024
DIGITAL JOURNAL

Remote working / home working, using a laptop. — Image by © Tim Sandle

Does the post-COVID rise in remote working correlate with an improvement to the environment? This is not a straightforward question to answer, and it depends on the parameters considered. On one hand, remote work eliminates daily commutes, leading to a reduction in transportation emissions; on the other hand, it also increases home energy use and alters lifestyle habits. Assessments also depend on situational factors like home building and local infrastructure.

One academic study has identified that people who work remotely all the time produce less than half the greenhouse gas emissions of office workers – a finding that requires permanent home working in order for the data to support the environmental argument.

Some measures are sufficiently clear, such as transportation. Using this metric coupled with fuel consumption, a survey, from Coworking Magazine (who will have some interest in this topic) has looked at major conurbations in the U.S. to produce groupings of cities that experience the biggest impact on their environment thanks to remote and hybrid work.

The document reveals the top three large cities with the biggest environmental impact to be:Baltimore, MD (198% WFH growth) – 4% drop in commute time; 7% improvement in air quality; 26.9% drop in carbon footprint; 3.4% reduction in gas consumption; 3.8% reduction in electricity consumption.
Washington, D.C. (279% WFH growth) – 1% drop in commute time; 5% improvement in air quality; 23.3% drop in carbon footprint; 13.5% reduction in electricity consumption.
San Jose, CA (288% WFH growth) – 7% drop in commute time; 8.3% drop in carbon footprint; 5.9% reduction in gas consumption; 0.9% reduction in electricity consumption.

Dropping the population down, the report further identifies the top three mid-sized cities with the biggest environmental impact:Newark, NJ (188% WFH growth) – 6% drop in commute time; 6% improvement in air quality; 8.3% drop in carbon footprint; 4.6% reduction in gas consumption; 0.9% reduction in electricity consumption.
Oakland, CA (203% WFH growth) – 6% drop in commute time; 8.3% drop in carbon footprint; 5.9% reduction in gas consumption; 0.9% reduction in electricity consumption.
Irvine, CA (175% WFH growth) – 5% drop in commute time; 8.3% drop in carbon footprint; 5.9% reduction in gas consumption; 0.9% reduction in electricity consumption.

At the lowest end of the scale, the top three small cities with the biggest environmental impact were found to be:Columbia, MD (256% WFH growth) – 2% drop in commute time; 7% improvement in air quality; 26.9% drop in carbon footprint; 3.4% reduction in gas consumption; 3.8% reduction in electricity consumption.
Quincy, MA (421% WFH growth) – 7% drop in commute time; 9.9% drop in carbon footprint; 5.1% reduction in gas consumption; 3.8% reduction in electricity consumption.
Simi Valley, CA (133% WFH growth) – 8% drop in commute time; 8.3% drop in carbon footprint; 5.9% reduction in gas consumption; 0.9% reduction in electricity consumption.

The results are of interest, although how the data connects is not straightforward since remote work is not zero carbon and the environmental impact of hybrid work is not linear.