Remote work sounds fantastic, but is it sustainable for the environment and/or good for it? Let’s begin by looking at both sides’ standard arguments.
Let’s first look at the common reasons why remote work is deemed bad for the environment:
In order to use energy better than houses, office buildings are built. Therefore, it takes less energy to get everybody into a heated or cooled building than and workers heating or cooling their individual homes.
Environmental resources are burnt down by materials and transportation to ship supplies or equipment to remote employees.
To have in-person meetings or to see customers, people working from home may need to travel more.
On activities such as video calls, the electricity, and bandwidth you use translate to CO2 emissions, meaning your device and internet usage are not without consequences.
Now here are the reasons that the world is ideal for remote work:
For remote employees, commuting is weakened or reduced. This saves the necessary gas or electricity for your car. This also decreases road traffic and road wear, automobile emissions and greenhouse gases, and pollution.
When at home vs. in an office, individuals may use less paper, print, and copy fewer pages. They use fewer paper and plastic cups, utensils, and other items usually in an office kitchen when people eat at home.
If the workplace has non-environmentally friendly devices for coffee pods that the worker does not have at home, the waste would also be minimized.
With fewer employees in the workplace, or due to a business moving to a smaller office room, the energy used to power the lighting and other equipment in the office will be significantly reduced.
There will be fewer furniture and appliances to buy (phones, copying machines, printers, etc) (and possibly manufactured).
This will result in less use of materials, such as ink cartridges, that are often unsustainable.
Remote work has some additional advantages that are more human than environmental, but are connected to the above environmental problems:
Employee lateness will be minimized as people no longer had to travel due to traffic and public transit problems.
The risks of workers being in a commuting-related accident will be decreased, saving lives and reducing the costs of the business associated with an absent worker.
It will dramatically decrease the number of missing days due to diseases spreading across workplaces. Although it can cost less than individual homes to heat or cool an office building, the filtered or circulated air ensures that colds and flu appear to spread more easily at the workplace than they may if people did not spend hours at the feet of sick colleagues.
Video Calls And Carbon Emissions
There is a statistic that says that per participant, one hour of an ultra HD video call generates 2.8 kg of CO2. Let’s imagine that we have an average of 3 hours of video calls a day in today’s meeting-heavy world, which also needs to improve. Multiply your video calls by approximately 260 working days a year, and you directly emit 2,184 kg of CO2 per year.
If bandwidth in this ratio translates to CO2 emissions, then the environmental consequences induced by watching videos, uploading or downloading data, and other bandwidth-heavy behaviors must also be considered.
Zapier, which has 320 workers, all remote, is an example of a solution. In 2019, through reforestation, Zapier purchased 647 metric tons (1,000 kg each) of carbon offsets. This represents an average of 2,022 kg emitted annually per employee.
This is a great start, but maybe a business should pay 5 metric tons per worker, contractor, or other forms of a worker to cover video calls as well as other consumed energy and materials. Investing in more reforestation or environmental changes than your expected use means that our impacts are not only neutralized, but we are starting to give back to the world.
Carbon offsets can cost as little as U.S. $20 per metric ton, which would mean just $100 per worker per year in investment. And if your chosen carbon offsets were $100 per metric ton for reforestation, this is still just $500 per worker per year. This ought to be in the budget of any company.
Environment
Most signs point to yes, more beneficial to the environment than not is remote working. Although this has been addressed for years when individuals realized the positive environmental changes during the pandemic lockdown, it became apparent, but only part of the environmental improvements seen during the lockdown would be triggered by workers being out of office.
Behaviors that are adding stress to the atmosphere can be modified and strengthened.
More energy-efficient appliances and methods will enhance how we heat or cool our homes or apartments. Jobs may need a welcome kit with equipment delivered to them, but it is unlikely that most types of companies and employees would need a constant flow of shipments.
Perhaps in-person meetings will continue to decrease in the future, reducing the environmental impact of travel, with the pandemic requiring us to conduct meetings through phone or video calls.
Ultimately, for a number of reasons, including sustainability and environmental friendliness, remote work wins over office work.
Source: Reworked
