Green Tip: Working at Home Worse than at the Office?

Well, more like a green warning. For people working from home, the most obvious benefit is the short commute, or the complete lack of one. Add to this the fact that you are eliminating carbon dioxide emissions that would have otherwise come from driving a car and the effect on the environment is a positive one. Turns out this may not really be the case. Treehugger points us to an article in The Telegraph telling us to work at the office and not at home. Why?

posted originally from: AT:Hometech

It is mainly due to the fact that for a single person working at home, the amount of energy required to heat and run the house, especialy during the winter months, is much higher than an office full of employees per capita. When comparing carbon dioxide emissions for the year, someone working at home produces 2.38 tonnes of CO2 while an office worker produces 1.68.

-via Treehugger

Thanks to atconc for the pic.

Comments (7)

Does this take into consideration the fact that the person working at home is not purchasing work clothing, reducing the carbon dioxide emissions from trucking the clothing in, the cost of trucking into an inner city food and other items needed by the worker in an office, and the over purchasing of and unnecessary waste of office products that occur with a large group of people in one place?

Have all other considerations been taken into account?

posted by JacksonMarie on July 20th 2007 at 6:24am
view JacksonMarie's profile

Here in Phoenix, where houses are enormous, I can sort of see these numbers making sense, if you turn your AC way down before going to work at a high-density cubicle-laden office and you aren't driving from Surprise to Tempe by yourself in an SUV. (People do.)

But let's say you live in a small apartment in a temperate climate where you don't use much heat or AC... you'd use more energy by working in an office tower, since office towers are usually climate-controlled and must run HVAC year-round.

posted by wende in the twin cities on July 20th 2007 at 6:30am
view wende in the twin cities's profile

Good point Jackson, there are SO many factors to consider.

posted by labchick on July 20th 2007 at 7:40am
view labchick's profile

I noticed when I was working from home for a few months that my electric bills were - oh about $5 to $10 higher per month.
(lights, electronics, running fans - no AC )

I wonder if I can include that in my expense report? But I guess it was made up for in the gas I wasn't using.

posted by clickchick on July 20th 2007 at 8:51am
view clickchick's profile

Then there's working in cafes that you walk to.

posted by Pixie on July 23rd 2007 at 1:49pm
view Pixie's profile

It seems like working at home increases your likelihood of owning printers, fax machines, copiers and other gadgets, though a lot of homes have these anyway.

Perhaps, as efforts to become more sustainable through urban density become more standard and computer networking gets cheaper, we could hope for apartment buildings with shared "utility office" space next door to the washing machines and clothes-lines.

posted by Tessa on July 24th 2007 at 3:40am
view Tessa's profile

Tessa, that's a great idea. Also, with wireless, maybe co-owning stuff with someone in another unit, so everyone didn't have to have everything in their unit. I hate to add more machines to my space and have resisted getting a printer/copier/scanner (although I would love to have it around to scan stuff and reduce clutter, rather than having to scan gradually at work). Also, I don't have a shredder. I take my shredding to work or use my new shredding scissors, which I adore:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LS1T92/103-0216795-8838278

posted by Pixie on July 24th 2007 at 5:39am
view Pixie's profile