Many Australians now have the option to work from home. But is it better or worse for the environment?
Change by degrees offers life hacks and sustainable living tips each Saturday to help reduce your household’s carbon footprint
Got a question or tip for reducing household emissions? Email us at changebydegrees@theguardian.com
The normalisation of working from home and flexible work has been one of the Covid-19 pandemic’s few positive legacies.
Today more than a third of Australians – and most managers and professionals – spend at least some of their working lives out of the office, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
In Victoria, the former premier Jacinta Allan proposed giving workers the right to work from home at least two days a week. But after business pushback and with a November election on the horizon, the incoming premier, Ben Carroll, delayed the start from September to July next year.
Of course, not everyone has the opportunity to work from home. Digital access varies, few homes have room for an office, and many jobs – including retail, trades and hospitality, and health and aged care professions – require employees to be in-person or on-site.
But for those who can, there’s broad agreement that working from home can be positive for the environment, although the extent of the benefits varies, depending on employee and business behaviours.
A well-publicised US study found people choosing to work from home full-time could reduce their emissions by up to 54%. But those savings may be curbed by the fact that remote workers are more likely to increase their emissions for social and recreational activities, such as using the car to run errands.
An Australian study suggests that emission cuts from transport changes outweigh residential energy use increases, concluding that if employees in capital cities worked from home 1.5 to four days a week this might reduce national emissions by 1.2m to 5.8m tonnes.
A 2026 International Energy Agency report recommends working from home to displace oil use from commuting, with the agency’s figures noting that everyone working remotely one day a week could save 24m tonnes of CO2 annually.
Alan Pears, an expert in energy efficiency and a senior industry fellow at RMIT, says there will always be huge variation in environmental savings, depending on people’s remote work behaviours, distance from work and transport mode.
For example, emissions savings from staying at home may be limited for people who usually travel to work by foot, bike or public transport, but more significant for those with long car commutes. In most cases, home energy use – from running computers, lighting, heating or cooling – is likely to rise, although any resulting emissions may be limited for homes with solar, or on renewable energy plans. Careful choices can increase the benefits.
“It’s not just the immediate emissions reductions,” Pears says. “Receiving a big energy bill could motivate energy saving investments in the home that benefit beyond work. Avoiding travel time can be a very valuable benefit including flexibility for family duties, avoiding childcare costs … It may mean the household can run one less car.”
Working from home is a good policy for cities and regions struggling with car pollution and congestion as it can have measurable impacts on reducing traffic-related pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, says Dorina Pojani, associate professor in urban planning at the University of Queensland.