With lesser commutes, how is remote work working for carbon emissions?
Used to be, one had to practically beg one’s Manager to be granted remote working privileges. Somehow, working remotely- physically distant from the coffee machine at the office that everyone loves — was considered an inefficient way of working.
But these days, working in the office is the exception.
It’s in no small part due to the high adaptability which the internet provides that a lot of (lucky) people around the world have been able to move to remote working collectively in a short span of time since the Covid crisis began.
Talking about which, one interesting question that this scenario has thrown up is how much of a dent it has made in terms of carbon emission?
Not going to the office means missing out on the very real and quasi-visceral thrill of patting on the back of your buddy and saying, “Hey, did you hear what that fool of a Manager did the other day?”(For some reason, gossiping is rarely as fun online).
But working from home also means cutting down on the daily commutes, and that ought to bring down emissions.
Right?
A 2020 review done on the topic shows that teleworking has negligible impact on emissions.
Bummer.
And I was hoping that a lesser-climate impact would be one more good reason we could cite for businesses to allow remote working for good(Other good reasons include not having to invest furiously on the nachos they serve all employees every Friday).
How efficient is the Net in terms of carbon emissions?
Given how teleworking wouldn’t be possible without the Net, it’s worth pondering how energy efficient internet as a system is?
The server farms that enable cloud storage and computing are known to be among the significant contributors of global warming.
America is still the tech headquarters of the world — all the major tech giants including Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple are American- and in the US alone, the energy consumption for the tech that powers the Net is estimated to be a whopping 73 billion kWh(kilowatts per hour).
With more people becoming netizens every day and the subsequent rise in internet consumption, the energy demand to keep the net running only seems to be on the upswing.
So, what’s the solution?
Some on the extreme fringes of climate activism even propose that we should dismantle the internet entirely for the sake of a better planet. But that idea, give how much the net is entwined in our professional and cultural lives, seems hardly feasible. (And let’s be realistic- how could you possibly make sense of the world without cat memes?)
A ray of hope some cite is that advance in technology would make the net better in terms of energy consumption.
As far as I know, technology is still not up there to make the internet conducive enough for a green planet. And as for hoping that the big time tech bros in Silicon Valley would work for a greener planet, I have my doubts.
For let’s not forget one thing- the bulk of the people who suffer the most from global warming are the poor and the marginalized. And the people who benefited the most from the same are the wealthiest 1% of the world- including the oil barons who pushed and pushed and continue to push for fossil fuel led economy and the tech bros who keep pushing for online consumption underlined by massive energy consumption that’s hurting the planet.
It’s the governments and common people who should take the initiative to shift to greener pastures. Not the internet moguls.
