By Eve Loveman This is the final article in this series on whether remote working is better for the environment. The previous article concluded that in most cases, taking account of home and office emissions and emissions from the daily commute, working from home will result in a reduction in an individual’s CO2 emissions overall....
This is the second in a three-part series on whether remote working is better for the environment than office-based working. The first article in the series discussed how remote working could reduce emissions from the daily commute. In this article, we weigh up this reduction in transport-related emissions, and any possible reduction in office-related emissions, with the increase in domestic-related emissions from heating and electricity that occurs as a result of working from home. The studies indicate that, on average, reduced emissions from commuting will outweigh increased domestic-related emissions, making remote working an environmentally friendly step to take [1,2]. However, in certain limited scenarios, travelling to work via less carbon-intensive modes of transport may result in lower emissions overall than working from home.
Remote working can have a positive impact on the environment through reducing transport-related emissions. Although these reductions are likely to represent only a small proportion of transport emissions as a whole, working from home could be one part of a package of policies aimed at reducing transport emissions.
Transportation often gets identified as a major vector for emissions, and is therefore the target of innovation.
Carbon capture and artificial solar irradiation management are not yet viable at a large scale, but could offer a way to counteract catastrophic temperature change.
The rise of global carbon emissions over the last decade has been contrasted by the decline in pricing for photovoltaics (PV). This article elaborates on how PV can become a major tool in the battle against climate change.
The decrease in price for electricity from renewable sources causes the investment in more renewables to stagnate. This article explains the mechanism behind it and how this issue could possibly be solved.
This is the second instalment of our investigation into the possibilities for a low-carbon future, where Vincent Diringer focuses on technology. The biggest fallacy is as follows: there is a need for continuous power generation, and the intermittency of renewables would make it impossible for it to be a viable option. The solution needed isn’t one-size-fits-all, and the sheer amount of projects being undertaken are certain to help find the best available option for any sector, issue, or entity.