The main causes of remote workers’ reduced emissions were less office energy use, as well as fewer emissions from a daily commute.
I mean yeah, that makes sense,
But I wonder what the numbers are when it comes to everyone keeping their homes heated/cooled all day compared to communal heating/cooling of a building.
People working at home will increase their personal emissions to keep their home office heated/cooled, and I suspect you get more bang for your energy buck if they are all in one spot instead of spread out into multiple buildings.
So sure… less office energy use, but increased home energy use…
I wonder how the study calculated that or even bothered…
I don’t know about your home and office, but every office I worked in had atrocious heating and cooling. People wear hoodies inside all summer because the AC is set too low.
definitely a perk working from home, you decide temperature/sound/etc.
But I’m talking from an overall society energy use perspective.
I’m curious if the energy efficiency of having people in one building compares to the energy efficiency of them spread out.
It will greatly vary, as some are already in apartment buildings sharing that efficiency, some are in better eff rated homes, some are in worse eff rated homes.
Not sure this study can accurately claim 54% … even if they said ±10%, it’s still probably way out to lunch.
I remember reading about a study pre-pandemic that found remote work was greatly better from an emissions standpoint than in-office work and it mostly came down to the massive amounts of resources spent commuting, and if I remember correctly it even found the emissions cost of commuting by public transit to be significant enough to see improvement by remote work
District heating (and cooling) would also alleviate the problem of people continuing to run ancient furnaces and air conditioners that are simply too old and worn down to be effective
The main causes of remote workers’ reduced emissions were less office energy use, as well as fewer emissions from a daily commute.
I mean yeah, that makes sense,
But I wonder what the numbers are when it comes to everyone keeping their homes heated/cooled all day compared to communal heating/cooling of a building.
People working at home will increase their personal emissions to keep their home office heated/cooled, and I suspect you get more bang for your energy buck if they are all in one spot instead of spread out into multiple buildings.
So sure… less office energy use, but increased home energy use…
I wonder how the study calculated that or even bothered…
I don’t know about your home and office, but every office I worked in had atrocious heating and cooling. People wear hoodies inside all summer because the AC is set too low.
definitely a perk working from home, you decide temperature/sound/etc.
But I’m talking from an overall society energy use perspective.
I’m curious if the energy efficiency of having people in one building compares to the energy efficiency of them spread out.
It will greatly vary, as some are already in apartment buildings sharing that efficiency, some are in better eff rated homes, some are in worse eff rated homes.
Not sure this study can accurately claim 54% … even if they said ±10%, it’s still probably way out to lunch.
I remember reading about a study pre-pandemic that found remote work was greatly better from an emissions standpoint than in-office work and it mostly came down to the massive amounts of resources spent commuting, and if I remember correctly it even found the emissions cost of commuting by public transit to be significant enough to see improvement by remote work
District heating is popular in parts of the world. We could lower emissions caused by commuting and lower emissions due to shitty tiny furnaces.
District heating (and cooling) would also alleviate the problem of people continuing to run ancient furnaces and air conditioners that are simply too old and worn down to be effective