I'm not convinced. Sure you heat more during the winter, but YOU NEED A WHOLE OFFICE LESS, and with some people's commutes in this day and age, you can also throw in a lot of gasoline..

Admittedly I'm saving almost nothing by working from home since I walk, bike or bus to work normally, but I tend to leave the thermostat where it would normally be during the day (16 C) and just put on a sweater. You've got me on the kettle, though -- I boil it just for me!

I find this hard to believe as well. If people actually lowered the temperature in their homes while gone to work, I can see that heating costs might be saved by going to work, but I do not think enought people do that. Office buildings are not often efficient and when poorly designed, need a lot of energy to air condition.
I think that the electricity use is likely to be similar for an office worker at home or at work, especially when conservation measures (like turning off computers, using power bars, only lighting needed rooms, keeping the fridge full) are used.
One should only boil the kettle with the amount of water they will immediately use anyway.

In the vast expanse of Canada, working from home is an excellent option, especially in rural areas, where people can easily drive 50km or more each way to work without acarpool because they don't live near people working in the same centre.

Thanks for the interesting tidbit (despite the fact I don't agree with it)!

This summation is not wholly accurate, nor does it consider several other factors. I personally telecommute from a home office. However, my "home" office is really an office in the upstairs of a detached garage. I use a fairly energy efficient "Mr. Slim" mini-split system and keep the thermastat at reasonable levels during both the winter and summer ( a little "colder" in the winter, a little "warmer" in the summer). Additionally, during my "lunch break", I typically just walk inside to the house to eat leftovers. I'm not buying the "kettle bit" above though. Think of all those commuting workers who ALSO leave the office to drive for lunch.

One size fit all conclusions clearly don't work., The reason is that there is no such thing as an "average" commuter. The baseline assumption sounds like the hypothetical McMansion with all systems "go" across the entire home. In reality there may be pets, plants, elderly grandparents or housekeepers present that require the HVAC to be on - nothing to do with telecommuting.

pfft. studies like these irritate me. sure, "in some cases" working from home may use more energy... or, perhaps you have a child at home and you weren't going to lock it in the closet with the heat off all day? or, perhaps your office building can heat just one room but DOESN'T, instead turning entire floors into saunas?

i think studies like this might be a waste of energy.

It's all about real estate. Most offices are open-plan, with large numbers of people sharing the same space. Heating, (or cooling and lighting) a lot of people inefficiently, is usually still better than heating them separately and efficiently. It's a bit like the LEED-certified monster home paradox.

Of course there will be exceptions to the rule, but these kinds of comparisons are really valuable sometimes. Our initial assumptions are so often wrong. And I don't think they're talking about self-employed people--just people who have a nice desk waiting for them at the office.

But the big difference will be with commuting. Brits take the train a lot more, and are much less likely to need to get in the car for lunch. They'd also probably be sucking back the tea the entire time they were at home...

Forget the heating, what about those of us in the US Southwest running our A/C all summer to cool our home offices?

Question I have no office per say.Mine consists of a laptop mount/printer mount/sat phone/misc cords and inverter.My bronco is my mobile office.I work for a pipeline company.I spend 5 days a week in my bronco.Having put on in excess of 1500 miles per week.A home office is not a real option.Nor is a work office.As i am never there but 10 minutes at any one building.I cover a great area.My best tools are a gps and volt meter.

One size doesn't fit all. What's needed is to look at each individual case.

It may be that individuals with good public transport access to energy-efficient offices should shut down their homes during the day and go to the downtown office.

However in the US where sprawl is the rule and good public transport is the exception, telecommuting and home energy conservation are likely to be preferable.

In areas with extreme temperatures, home offices should be set up in rooms that can be individually heated or cooled, to reduce the need for heating or cooling the entire house. The entire idea of "open floorplan" homes is an artifact of cheap energy, compared to oldschool designs with separate rooms that can be heated or cooled only as needed.

As for electricity, it all depends on the source. If you're lucky enough to get most of your power from a wind farm, nuclear plant, or rooftop solar system, the individual tea kettle and electric room heater or air conditioner are less of an issue than if you're in an area that gets its power from coal, oil, or natural gas.

It seems to me that most of the relevant factors could be combined into a simple online application consisting of a series of questions that an individual should be able to answer easily enough. Thus, you could get a useful approximation of your impacts either way (downtown office or home office), and make an intelligent decision.

Meanwhile, for those who have to be physically present at work, e.g. retail, construction trades, factory, and so on, there is no substitute for improved public transport and reasonable real estate prices close to their work locations.

I'm a consultant. I travel to my clients' office. I have kids too that are at home most of the time. If I don't have to travel to my clients', I reduce my carbon emissions driving there, or even taking the train (though the train is going to move, with or without me =). My point is, energy is already being consume at home and besides the point. By telecommuting, I get to save the carbon emissions. And I use a lappy at home rather than a power hogging desktop...

Even if this is the case it only would apply to those working home alone. I work alone but my wife and children are at home as well. So there is no extra heating at all.

I agree with other commentors that at home most people won't use A/C as fast as office need to do (lot's of glass in modern buildings heats offices quite fast).

Also the thing about boiling water is pretty lame. As home workers will have equipment that has to be turned on and off most offices will have equipment that keeps the water hot (as they don't want to waste minutes on waiting for the water to be boiled).

It seems that this article was written for some companies who are sick and tired hearing their workers wanting to work at home for the CO2 reduction.

You'd really have to repeat this study for every country. For example, my office is heated and lit whether I'm working there or not (because it's open-plan) and I'm pretty sure that most Limeys, as I do, put our home heating on the 'Twice' setting (meaning, a burst of heat in the morning and another in the evening) when we're out at work all day, so homeworking in the winter would mean more heating. And more tea.
So I should home-work in the summer and our Southern Belle with AirCon should home-work in the winter.

This article has really struck a nerve.

pfft. I like that.

These days there are too many studies that seem intended to achieve little more than stirring the pot and getting the issuer some PR. Job done, I'd say.

It's all been pretty much said already, but as I'm in my home office in the UK let's offer 2 cents. Yes, in winter the heating is still on during the day, but there are these odd little fellas over here we call radiator thermostats, that allow you to tune the room. And, frankly, with a wife and two kids the rooms being heated the rest of the time don't go too low either as they would howl spousal/parental abuse if they are not erring on the toasty on arrival. And there is the notion (upon which I stand ready to be educated), that it may be better to maintain a well-insulated trickle constant rather than allowing to cool and boost heat up too often.

As to a/c... not yet! With global warming... give it a few years. All I know is when I lived in Singapore, with a daily 32 degrees C and 98% humidity, I did just fine with a fan to keep the air moving.

And for the kettle, well, we have a nifty number here called the ecokettle. Does one cup on demand in 30 environmentally-friendly seconds. And I don't have to make one for a bunch of folk that no one quite knows what they produce or even do anyways. Wit titles like 'Director of...' well, you can think of one.

Plus I get to walk with my kids to and from school and work whilst watching the swans on the River Wye.

It's all a tad moot, as I ain't about to budge, and I doubt many others are either.

Interesting headline though. Bet it did wonders for the ratings, despite that 'may' get out clause. Movin' on...

the 1.68 tons of CO2 per office worker doesn't seem to include the CO2 gen'd during the commute to and fro. A not-so-bad assumption would be approx 25# of CO2 per person for the round trip (about one gal of gas). the 1.68 tons becomes 4.8 tons per annum. This assumes 250 working days per year.

Suddenly working from home looks great.

Who is WSP? From their website- "WSP is one of the world’s fastest-growing design, engineering and management consultancies. Specialising in property, transport and environmental projects, we work with clients to create built and natural environments for the future." This might not an objectiive study...

Or, then again, it may not.

So, at best, surveys show that surveys show that...

Don't know so much about the eco-aspects, but if you want to weigh the money side (in £), this has a calculator:

http://www.enterprisenation.com/

Articles like this make me crazy mainly because this is just the sort of thing mass media picks up to pad out their news programmes and newspapers. It gives the public yet another excuse to just throw up their hands and say, 'Damned if I do, damned if I don't' -- so they don't.

This report makes home-based professionals seem like they are doing the environment a dis-favor. What an embarrassment for David Symons and WSP Environmental.

Though this article is one of those sexy, nice to ponder, over simplifications, it too is a great example of looking at something out of context. As well as another example of looking at things with a microscope approach rather than a wide angle lens.

1) When you work at home OR go to an office, you're STILL going to be heating the house you're in, or left. Can you say frozen and burst pipes? I knew you could. This article right form the git-go looks like the person doesn't live in a place where it actually gets cold. And so really is not looking at their subject in context.

2) For every person that works from home, that's that much LESS land that needs paving, and so that much MORE land that gets to participate in growing things. Which in turn cleans the air, filters water, and provides a bit more habitat for the rest of the beings we share the planet with. Plus too, more green space makes for happier and healthier communities.

3) For every person that works at home, that's that much less gas that needs importing and defending with the lives of our children. I'd say that's a pretty big deal too.

4) Lets talk a bit about the office environment. People who work from home tend NOT to eat out as much. So that cuts down on those resource demands, and all the health and pollution impact that means. People who work form home tend to be more relaxed and less stressed out (I know I am), which impacts health and productivity. So that cuts down on those resource demands. And what about people who work out of their house and have kids at home too? There are all those extra resources that don't need spending. Plus of course helping to add to a stronger family bond, and all the good things that means for society in general as that child grows to be a contributing member.

5) JUST looking at CO2, and worse yet JUST looking at CO2 in a very narrow light is not what sustainability is about. Sustainability is about looking at ALL impacts on ALL levels. CO2 is a big deal, but it's not the ONLY deal.

This article raises some good points, but what about the cost of maintaining office space in a CBD location and the CO2 emissions of keeping lights on after hours and heating up the building in the morning before everyone comes into work?

It is not only the affect of buildings on the environment whilst they are being occupied, but the affect of maintaining a habitable environment after hours.

Dont swap a horse for a cow!

I will not talk with numbers and dollars...

I can just say, that since I quit my office in town and work at home now I know who my neighbours in my village are, we do meet while going to the fields to pick up or to cultivate vegetables, we exchange many old and forgotten knowledge about health, food, housekeeping at all, ...we care for each other.
And I left my things from the office (kettle, cups, coffeautomate, carpet, telefon and fax machine, printer...) at Red Cross office (I have them also at home) , many books and magazines in the public library, many shoes and clothes I also left at Red Cross, all music CD copies got friends ...

...and my 4 cats seem to be quite satisfied that I touch them more often...
I am just waiting for my boss to move to my ECO home soon.
With love from Slovenia, Europe

Another thing you must consider is that the home office *may already be heated* in the winter no matter whether the individual is or is not working at home. So, that's carbon is being emitted regardless.