http://www.emagazine.com/view/?5346In recent study, enviornmentalists found that shopping or workking from home may actually be worse for the enviornment then friving to work or the store. Contrary to common belief both activities increase carbon emmisions. Not only that, but telecommuting can increase your monthly bill by up to 30%! Telecommuting can also increase the chance that someone will accept a job farther away from their house or urban center.
However, in some cirrcumstance telecommunicating CAN BE a better alternative. For example, one has to buy enough products, about 25 simultaniously, or replacea shopping trip that would have been a long drive.
Proffesor Phil Blythe Chair states that this new data tells us 2 things. One is that climate change isd a real threat to our planet, so we can't get overwelmed by the task, and use rebound efects as our excuse, Second, We must make sure that rebound effects don't override the possitive benefits of the current policys, and don't just move carbon emmisions from one sector to another.
Opinion:
I don't think that it this data really makes a whole lot of difference. If the two ways to work and shop are equally as bad for the enviornment it doesn't really matter which one we do. Until a better way to work/shop comes out this data really is useless other than just the eye-opener of wow, telecommuting isn;'t as enviornmentally friendly as I thought.
Questions:
1) What is a good alternatoive to telecommuting or driving to work or a store.
2) In what ways is telecommuting better for the enviornment, in what ways is it worse?
3) What precautions do you think will be taken in the futeure to make shopping and working better for the enviornment?
This information is surprising, but just as Ben said, it really doesn't make that big of a difference. My mom works from home and is aware that it increases our monthly bill, but I don't think she realized that she was still increasing carbon emmissions. Unless we find a way to work/shop without contributing to the carbon emmissions, (which doesn't seem like it would be anytime soon) there's really nothing that we can do to stop this. This information was eye-opening, but I honestly think that it's not going to affect us in any way. #1. There is no alternate to telecommuting or driving. Right now they're the only options we have. This is a pretty interesting site I found: http://www.greengrowthcc.com/2010/09/24/telecommuting-vs-regular-commuting/
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Ben and Jake that this is interesting and surprising information, but there's not a huge effect on us or the environment. Although this can still be researched and studied some more, I think that we should be worrying more about other things affecting the environment, since this isn't a huge concern. I think that it is good to have an alternate choice for work (staying at home or driving) so it is definitely not a bad thing though.
ReplyDeleteI found this website and graph displaying benefits of telecommuting to different organizations: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/trying-to-increase-productivity-send-your-employees-home/10336
This story really got my attention. I had no idea that it actually can cost more to work from home. I don't think that telecommunicating or driving to work or a store has an alternative. People must talk on the phone because they can't just drive everywhere to meet people in person and also they must go into work or they'll get fired and then if they don't go to the store they won't have clothes or food. I still think it is better for the enviroment because if you drive everywhere you are polluting the air which is horrible for the enviroment. This story really brought my attention out, but I think it won't affect nearly as much as other things could that people should be worrying more about.
ReplyDeleteI found this site on telecommunicating:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs020.htm
Even though I have never considered this subject, it doesn’t come as a surprise to me to hear that shopping online is worse than going down to the store. In some cases, products have to travel across an entire country to make it to peoples’ doorsteps which uses a lot more fuel than driving a couple of miles.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Ben’s question, there really is no alternative becomes there is simple only two ways to get a product. You go to it or it comes to you. Sometimes you can try to kill two birds with one stone by running several errands within one trip but that can’t always happen.
Try comparing another source of communication. Option 1 is that you can email someone a document or whatever they need or you can mail it to them physically. Option 1 is simply better considering the message goes through instantaneously, email is free while it would cost you to mail a decent sized report/document, and thirdly, no normal person would drive hundreds of miles to access a product that can be obtained online.
Also, the more people that purchase items online, the more the shipping/mailing industry is benefitted which is no small chunk of our economy.
Much like Nicole’s post about the bubonic plague, this is an extremely minor contribution to climate problems/society that doesn’t need superfluous research. For example, when have you seen someone on tv or the internet saying that we need to cut down on cyber communication so the earth can survive? The fact is: you don’t. You are much more likely to hear about stuff that actually matters like all the hundreds of millions of cars on the road today.
My question to Ben (which he probably won’t end up answering) is this: In the future when technology will be a key component to day to day life on earth, which will be more effective, telecommunicating or physically driving to access products/info?
My final point is that technology in today’s modern world wins because of how much easier it makes our lives and how much more efficiently it makes the world go round.