None…

http://www.edeskonline.com

I agree with you about laptops, but that raises another issue - laptops break comparatively easily, and when components break, the whole thing often has to be replaced. Battery units for laptops are a serious environmental concern already. And many people I know who work from home (I do, my husband does part of the time, many of my friends do, as do many family members) have desktops *and* laptops because the laptops are simply not as comfortable for long term use.

Again, it isn’t that I want to see people driving to work, or that I’m opposed to telecommuting. Mostly, I think the solution is deeper than that - fewer people working fewer hours and doing more subsistence production (growing food, making things instead of buying, making do instead of needing). Telecommuting may indeed operate as a bridge there.

Sharon

I agree with you that there are lots of predictions and claims of environmental gains as a result of new-technology adoption that are exaggerated and never come true (and in some cases, have the opposite affect from that which is claimed by the technology’s proponents). In this case, there are two factors which have to be addressed: energy spent building the tools for the work environment (ie: computers) and energy spent on commuting.

It seems fairly clear that on average, the costs (both monetarily as well as in environmental terms) for transportation will always be lower for telecommuters than it will be for those who travel to the office every day (and this will have an even larger affect over the years, as gas prices continue to rise and commutes continue to get longer). In this aspect, telecommuting is definitely an energy-saver.

Regarding computer equipment - This is based purely on anecdotal evidence, but with powerful laptops available for almost the same cost as an equivalently-powerful desktop computer, most people who are telecommuting will not have a computer in the office and a computer at home. They will have one computer that they use both in the home and in the office (even in today’s networked world, most people customize their computers as they customize any other part of their work environment, and cannot just start working efficiently on the company desktop computer set aside for “special onsite projects”). And even if a company would set aside a special work area for teleworkers who are in the office for a day, at a company that has a significant number of telecommuters (as is the trend), this will not be a on-to-one ratio of equipment to workers. So even though it is good to question these claims and assumptions, in this case I would challenge the assertion that telecommuting will cause a significant increase in equipment expenditures, production and associated costs.

And as far as calling telecommuting an “environmental panacea” - I think that this may be a little bit exaggerated. I think that telecommuting is something that will cause less consumption of and spending on energy and fuel, and combined with other real solutions and efforts can lead to significant reductions in fossil fuels and global warming-related factors. But it is not the answer.

I don’t actually have a strong opinion on this one - what I think is important to note is that generally speaking, claims made for energy reduction technologies have either not occurred, or enabled that energy simply to be spent elsewhere - they haven’t resulted in net emissions or energy consumption reductions. I find it unlikely that, for example, businesses won’t want a lot of computers on site in many cases for those “special” onsite projects. It isn’t at all clear that we’ll be making a concerted reduction.

Again, I’m not opposed to telecommuting policies - I think they have other potential advantages. But I think the notion that they are an environmental panacea is probably wrong.

Again, thanks for the commentary.

Sharon

I’m so excited to check out your site!