Folks, people feel isolated when they telecommute. It's a bad call even in a solid, healthy community. Regardless, because businesses already tried it many times and realized this, it will be largely limited to a few clueless people spouting that more people should do it.

Basically, get over it and focus on making the transport options better.

More people should do this and more people are doing this. It is as clear as water and as obvious as daylight. Doesn't require a rocket science degree. My wife basically telecommutes from our home - and we live out in the middle of isolated countryside - and she has no problems. As far as I know telecommuting continues to spread in all fields and in all countries. It's a good call for businesses, employees, and the environment. That simple. Of course, there will always be some clueless people who think otherwise. Especially if they have an economic interest in doing so.

However, I do believe that the public transport sector needs to be improved since the vast majority of people still commute to work and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

I don't think working from home full time would be a good idea - it would be isolating and too easy to get distracted. But I love being able to work from home sometimes - like if one of my kids is sick or the weather conditions make driving unsafe.
I think telecommuting is something along the lines of good for some people all of the time, but most people just some of the time.

Folks, people feel isolated when they telecommute. It's a bad call even in a solid, healthy community. Regardless, because businesses already tried it many times and realized this, it will be largely limited to a few clueless people spouting that more people should do it. Basically, get over it and focus on making the transport options better.

Perhaps if you spent as much effort on a marginal amount of creativity compared to your copious amount of naysaying, you might notice that telecommuting needn't be sitting at home by oneself. Sun Microsystems, for example, helps their employees work closer to home by setting up flexible work centers that have on-demand workspace, including computers.

Coffee shops are another kind of "third place" that are also used by many people to conduct their work.

Tone back the meanness and maybe you'll be useful one day.

5) is not befuddling at all, it's common sense. It takes less energy to heat and cool an office of 1000 people than it does to do the same to 1000 individual residences. Residences that would otherwise be sitting vacant with the thermostat at a lower setting.

Telecommuting only serves as an excuse to continue the sprawling suburban development that caused the carbon-intensive commute in the first place.

If an employee works at home all year, however, he or she pumps out 2.38 tons of carbon dioxide, whereas a typical office worker produces only 1.68 tons of carbon per year, suggests WSP. Wha?

Let's see if this makes sense.

Average commute distance = 10 miles each way
Average mpg = 20
Lbs CO2 per gallon = 20
Work days per year = 250

So that's 5,000 miles in just commuting (not stopping for gas, getting coffee, running errands) at 1 lb of CO2 per mile. That's 2.5 tons of CO2 right there. Now add in their share of CO2 emissions from the heating, cooling, electricity, and so forth at their office. Then factor in the damage from all the roads, parking lots, and other infrastructure to support the car commuting.

Telecommuting, working from home, shedworking, whatever you call it, is growing and growing fast in many countries because people want to do it. On the green side of things, Builderau reported yesterday on risk management company Climate Risk Australia's new report which estimates telecommunications networks can help reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by up to five percent by 2015, and save Australian businesses and households as much as AU$6.6 billion annually. Here's what writer Marcus Browne says: "The report identified seven areas in which the telecommunications industry could implement solutions to cut carbon emissions, ranging from the use of broadband to remotely manage power for appliances not in use or left on stand-by, to using teleworking and high-definition video conferencing to decrease reliance on commuting by car and air travel."

Meanwhile a piece at InterGovWorld by Rosie Lombardi shows how "new technologies will play a big role in developing the economy" in Saskkatchewan where young people have been leaving for the boom-towns of Alberta. The article contiunes: "However, we've seen a shift in the past two years with folks returning as Alberta acquires more big-city problems," says Richard Murray, executive director of IT policy and planning at the Province of Saskatchewan. We have a number of advantages here: small-town life, inexpensive cost of living, beautiful environment," he says. With the rise of teleworking, it will soon become unnecessary for people to leave to get jobs or start businesses."

The best compromise is for firms to give employees the option. People with homes that are expensive to heat in winter or cool in summer (and thus are carbon intensive) will tend to self-select when they see their utility bills.

Large firms will need to set aside areas for hotdesking, but if a large body of employees are given the option to work from home at their choosing, then the average number of people in work at any given time will be lower, allowing the firm to maintain smaller premises. Hotdesks can also be smaller and closer together than allocated desks, as people can't clutter their workspace.

This is the WSP Environmental study results from their website: (all capitalized words and phrases are my emphasis) http://www.wspgroup.co.uk/en/WSP-UK/Press/News-Archive/Cut-your-carbon--work-from-home-during-the-Summer/?epslanguage=EN

'Cut your carbon – WORK FROM HOME during the Summer! 29 May 2007

Research from global environmental consultancy, WSP Environmental, shows that companies hoping to cut their carbon emissions should encourage home-working, but only in summer when home heating is off - over the year as a whole, it’s more carbon efficient at present to work from an office rather than at home.

WSP Environmental’s research shows that a TYPICAL office worker IN THE UK is responsible for 1.68 tonnes of carbon per year – from travel and in the energy consumed while at work. In contrast, an average homeworker accounts for around 2.38 tonnes per year – nearly 30% more than working from the office.

David Symons, Director of Corporate Services, explains: “Encouraging home-working to cut out the commute could be seen as a quick win for companies trying to reduce their carbon emissions. However, the carbon saved by not driving to the office is cancelled out because homeworkers typically heat the whole house, all day during the winter.”

In summer, working from home is the best option from a carbon perspective since the heating is off and, more importantly, few homes in the UK have air conditioning. Air conditioning typically accounts for around 30% of a typical office’s energy bills.

Companies who encourage both homeworking and are striving to be low carbon should look at their staff’s home heating. Upgrading home heating controls so homeworkers can just heat their office not the whole house produces the best carbon profile overall. WSP Environmental calculates that THIS APPROACH WOULD PRODUCE JUST 0.9 TONNES OF CARBON PER YEAR.

For more information pelase contact David Symons.

Notes for editors

Methodology

The research examines three scenarios:

200 employees working from an office (1.68 TONNES)
200 employees working from home (assuming the only rooms which are lit and heated/cooled are the ones occupied by the employee), (0.9 TONNES)
and 200 employees working from home (assuming the whole flat is lit and heated/cooled) (2.38 TONNES)

To calculate the office building emissions, the research draws upon accepted energy demand BENCHMARKS set out in the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers’ Energy Consumption Guide: Energy use in Offices (2001). The study uses an ‘air conditioned, STANDARD' office type which is managed using GOOD practice (ie that the energy consumption is being managed well, however there is still scope for further cost-effective savings).

The Energy Consumption Guide provides a snapshot of energy requirements and take into consideration energy demand for heating, cooling, fans, pumps, humidification, lighting, office equipment and catering, providing an accurate estimation of the total energy demand per square metre.

To calculate employee travel, NATIONAL AVERAGE commuting figures as compiled by National Statistics and the Department for Travel (2003) were used. The average mile per gallon figures were taken from studies produced by the Department for Transport and National Statistics. The total number of travel days made annually per employee was calculated to be 231, which takes into consideration weekends, annual leave and public holidays.

The carbon dioxide figures in relation to building energy consumption and employee travel were calculated using DEFRA 2005 figures (The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2005): Guidelines for Company Reporting on Green House Gas Emissions).

To calculate the home-working scenario, the research assumes a 2 bed flat, with two external walls, measuring 80m2, with 25m2 occupied during the working day.'

It is clear that this study is focused on a specific geographical location and point in time. It is also clear that this study makes a number of assumptions about workers, travel, and offices. And it is also clear that this study nevertheless concludes that their ideal scenario is WORKING FROM HOME and that companies should encourage more workers to WORK FROM HOME. That there are many workers that heat their homes inefficiently is obvious. It is also obvious that there are many office buildings that power their buildings very inefficiently too. Don't knock telecommuting because there are workers who are irresponsible with how they use energy. Telecommuting is INHERENTLY environmentally responsible. If you want to complain, complain that there are people who needlessly waste energy at home. Do that, and I will be behind you supporting your statements with my every fiber against any who challenge you.

America’s 3.9 million Internet telecommunication users in 2006 saved over 3 billion litres of fuel and some 10-14 million metric tonnes of CO2, enough to generate electricity for a million houses and prevent emissions of 1.5-2.1 million cars annually.

- The Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact of Telecommuting and e-Commerce, by the Consumer Electronics Association

I spend 3 hours every day sitting in traffic, for a job I could quite easily manage from home with internet access and conference calls, simply because the company policy is bums-in-chairs = productivity. As a minor concern to the greater issue here, this is a frustrating waste of my time!
But more importantly, I live in South Africa, a country with currently limited focus on emission control, climate and global warming. We have no access to public transport systems, except for an informal taxi network which again is simply minibusses (contributing to more emissions!). My car, along with most of the 300 000 cars which travel my section of the motorway twice every day, spends 3 hours pumping out toxins into the atmosphere!
All of which could be reduced greatly if more companies in South Africa were prepared to consider telecommuting.
(Oh, and I agree partially with the comments about feeling isolated working from home - but if more people were doing it, we would gravitate towards public spaces closer to our homes for networking and social interaction, and not need to travel miles daily simply because our office is not located near our homes.)

Right-o, Brad! If I have to work from home, the lights are still on in my office, but then I have to have a bulb on at home (and yeah, heat, I'm in Seattle and it's getting cold).

Anonymous: None of this touchy-feely stuff is going to help us. It's a bad call. I work in the software industry - I "could" do my job from home, but it wouldn't be cost effective to do so, and most of the industry knows that. You know it's generally not cost effective to put customer service in India either? You don't get good customer retention. It's a fad based on poor systems analysis.

The fact is, if we hadn't usurped the transport system in the US so badly, we'd have all this mass transit capacity available to handle people and it wouldn't be an issue. We're trying to solve a symptom, not the underlying problem.

And solving a symptom, or trying to, really just sets back our work addressing the real urban sprawl issue.

The answer of course is to get a garden office and start shedworking...

A couple of quick notes.

First, running back and forth (by ourselves in 2 ton vehicles using fossil fuels) like mindless chickens each day, just to survive, is plain and simple insanity. It is the fundamental crux of our environmental woes. Anyone who can't immediately apprehend that needs to step back and see it for what it is.

Second, the single riskiest activity that someone under 35 can engage in is driving a car. Kind of hard to die or sustain crippling injuries booting up your computer.

Third, stress hurts and stress kills. If one can deal with the isolation factors (through neighborhood-based remote work options or through self-disciplined at-home work), then it's clearly less stressful not to drive than it is to drive.

Some of you people stun me daily with your hostility towards clearly green-positive ideas and your embrace of clearly green-negative ones (like nuclear power). It's truly disturbing.

Sometimes we need to hear the same thing over and over:

THERE IS MORE THAN ONE SOLUTION

THERE IS MORE THAN ONE SOLUTION

In the IT world, telecommuting is commonplace. I have been working from home since 1997 and it has inspired me to start a blog relating to telecommuting.

On a related note: there are some interesting power use statistics in this ABC news article about one of my previous employers, Sun Microsystems. There are some useful "green company" pointers as well: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=environment&id=5652761