Is this proven (it probably can't be proven given the huge variety of commutes, office spaces, heating sources etc.)? It would be my default assumption but I feel like heating one office with 100 people in it is much more efficient than heating 100 homes in winter. And if people are in a location where publish transport is the norm then it might be better in terms of carbon impact to be in office.
When I’m on-site, my house is set to a significantly lower temperature during the day. Scheduled thermostats have been around long enough that I assume that’s the norm.
But then you need a surge in power to put it back from lo_temp to hi_temp when you get back home, I honestly don't know if it costs more or less than just maintaining it at hi_temp, and what are the orders of magnitude involved.
The first order approximation is that the heat loss between the inside and outside is linear with the temperature difference (delta-T) between them. So, if the delta-T is 10°C when occupied and allowed to rise to 14°C when unoccupied for 8 hours, there is a small savings. When the heating system is then commanded to recover the temperature, it will generally do a longer, single run (which for fossil fuel equipment is more efficient than a series of small runs, but for heat pumps is not significantly different [unless it engages emergency backup, which is far worse])
Overall, it's a small win, partially offset in the heating season by the heat gain from human occupancy and activity. It's almost surely not enough of a win to sum up to pay for the conditioning of an entire office building that would otherwise not be heated beyond "don't freeze the plumbing".
Presumably a 15 degree F or whatever lower temp (and reduced use of electricity for other purposes) during the day does reduce costs somewhat. However, for most people, commuting is almost certainly a significantly larger expense.
Obviously this is highly dependent on where you live…which gets back to my original point that there are so many variables it probably isn’t possible to declare one option better for the environment. Fwiw, in the UK I actively turn heat on and off depending on when it’s needed. It would never, ever, be on when I’m out, unless I was going out of town for a while and had to consider things like frozen pipes.
In a place like the Bay Area where the weather is pleasant and the commutes are primarily by privately owned vehicles I think it should be the case.
If you live in NYC, Boston, or Chicago, and used to take the train, maybe it’s different
However I think the biggest environmental issue with remote work is encouraging nationwide suburban and exurban sprawl. Still, that can only be the nations failure for not incentivizing construction of desirable urban properties so Americans feel like they need a big house and tons of land to escape their tiny urban apartment
There's nothing inherent about dense cities that make them more desirable to live in especially absent convenience to offices--no matter how carefully planned. There are tradeoffs. I could absolutely live in a pretty nice city and choose not to do so.
For a (weak) counterpoint, there's an interesting article in Bloomberg today about how day-time recreational drug habits are increasing due to remote work.
>> Drug recovery firm Sierra Tucson concluded from a November 2021 survey that about 20% of US workers admitted to using recreational drugs while working remotely, and also to being under the influence during virtual meetings.
I once bought a hotdog from a street vendor in Copenhagen that was seriously high on some downers in 2:00 in the morning, so clearly hotdog vendors are more likely to do drugs.
100 businesses are responsible for 70% of fossil fuel use. doing what you can is great, but it won't make a difference unless businesses change as well.
I have heard that stat before and it turns out those business are basically shipping and freight companies, car manufacturers etc.
if you somehow told the companies to stop burning oil and carbon most world trade would stop, and they would have to take peoples cars a
away
Yes we could reduce the impact (burn cleaner diesel on ships, avoid contrails) but this is not 100 evil companies that need to be taught a lesson - this is all of us, billions of humans and our default lifestyle
The problem with that framing is that those big companies aren't just responding to consumer demand but have also actively lobbied for policies that create said demand. For instance shipping companies pay a much lower corporate tax rate than other companies and car companies have lobbied against everything from efficiency and clear air regulation to creating alternatives to a car-first transportation system. Oil companies are in a league of themselves and we're only starting to see shenanigans they've done to stall dealing with climate change.
Those businesses are big because they’re the abstraction layer over the fact that what they produce is something a lot of people want. If they were destroyed overnight an awful lot of people would die and then their economic function would be reconstituted, probably more carbon intensive because it’s more robust to supply chain disruption.
a lot of people would be inconvenienced. if they are unable to farm and support themselves in case of an emergency it's due to environmental collapse. they should move somewhere less damaged. the alternative is to keep spreading the damage
I can no more complain about Exxon-Mobil creating emissions relating to the fuel that I buy than I can the local farmer killing a cow to make the beef that I buy.
Yes, I can. I never wanted to buy the fuel in the first place. It's just that everything was designed in such a way that I must burn it to survive. I go out of my way not to whenever possible but my economic constraints don't allow freedom from it.
Even if I manage to find somewhere that I don't need it, a ridiculous amount will be used behind the scenes for everything else I need. Or there will be 100 others who can't get into that situation.
I'm not living a lavish life where I can just cut back much either. I'm living a barebones one and still cutting it close financially despite being a developer.
Unfortunately, it does not seem to. Others have mentioned how heating and cooling a private residence is more energy intensive per person, but even vehicle miles traveled aren’t reduced. It turns out people just drive to more places that aren’t work and move to more auto dependent communities where they overall drive more.
During the beginning of COVID, there was a big drop in carbon as more worked from home but it was mostly because people weren’t going anywhere.
