Report suggests online shopping and telecommuting lead to higher carbon emissions

A new report from Newcastle University suggests that working from home and shopping online actually increases carbon emissions. According to researchers, buying goods online only provides carbon savings if certain conditions are met. For example, if a truck delivers at least 25 orders in one trip or if your online purchase takes the place of more than three physical shopping trips. As computers make it easier for us to conduct business from home, it's become more important to determine how exactly it impacts the environment.

The Institution of Enginnering and Technology (IET) report examined the "rebound" effects of telecommuting. Rebound effects occur when activities designed to reduce emissions in one area result in those emissions being produced elsewhere. Cars with better fuel efficiency may encourage people to drive more miles and therefore generate the same amount of pollution as less efficient cars. Or car designers may use the extra efficiency to install more features, leading to heavier vehicles and greater fuel consumption.

The IET report, "Unintended consequences from transport policies and technology innovations," concludes that working from home can increase household energy use by as much as 30 percent as well as encourage people to move farther away from a central location, which means more urban sprawl. The researchers assume that improved energy efficiency will lead to higher overall consumption.

However, the size of the rebound effect is debatable. In a study conducted by Jadavpur University in 2000, researchers gave solar powered lighting to rural households in India to replace the use of kerosene. Households saw a threefold increase in lighting use and a quick rise in cooking activity. Overall consumption did increase in response to improved energy efficiency. But does this mean that more efficient lighting in America will likewise cause people to go out and buy three more lamps for their living room? Many urban areas already use light 24/7, so more efficient light bulbs will likely lead to greater efficiency alone rather than greater consumption. The size of the rebound effect depends on a population and its own, unique needs.

A 2006 study from the University of California, Irvine titled "Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect" supports this idea. The study found that the size of the rebound effect also declines with income. Essentially, it's a question of needing more versus having enough. Then the question becomes, what is enough?

The IET report highlights, more than anything, the fact that our lifestyle choices do have an impact and that conclusions can't be drawn from examining only one aspect of our lives. Telecommuting, for example, does not need to increase carbon emissions. As Lloyd Alter explains in Treehugger, household energy use has become more efficient over the past decade. A home office today could very well run on solar panels, geothermal energy and LED lighting. Or, a telecommuter may not work at home at all. Libraries, cafes and other communal spaces offer a space with electricity, heating and cooling for everyone to share. A telecommuter might choose to remain in an urban area and run errands using public transportation or a bicycle. She or he might save energy by not washing, ironing and drycleaning all those suits and dress pants. A flexible schedule means that telecommuters need not be on the road or run errands during peak travel times, which further reduces emissions. Telecommuters, and anyone, can estimate their own emissions based on daily habits using the Environmental Protection Agency's online carbon emission calculator or with an app like Android's Ecorio.