Myths and Reality: eCommuting and Clean Air

Myth: Since air quality is negatively affected by so many diverse sources the emissions saved by one person eCommuting only one day per week must be negligible.

REALITY: Emissions savings from eCommuting are like snowflakes in an avalanche - while one eCommuter may not seem a noticeable difference, many together have an enormous impact. Every individual can make a difference for the environment by eCommuting. Nationally, if 10% of the workforce eCommuted one day per-week, the annual pollution savings would be the weight equivalent of three capitol domes - 12,963 tons. Cities vary, but research shows that if an individual eCommutes 1.8 days per week for a year instead of their average commuting distance (in this instance, in Houston), the miles not traveled represent 44 pounds of criteria pollutants a year that don't go into the air, per vehicle.
(Source: NEPI Telework and Environment Report, July 31, 2000)

Myth: Emissions trading programs allow polluters to buy credits and keep polluting; credits move the emissions around from savers to polluters without making a reduction.

REALITY: The EPA has set attainment goals that cannot be exceeded within a region. Credits are not fungible; they may be purchased only once and may not be resold. Experience from past air trading programs indicates that overall reductions occur sooner, and at lower cost than with traditional air regulatory programs. Further, the utilities and manufacturers that supply power and products to the community can maintain productivity without fear of regulatory penalties with trading programs. Allowing those companies that can establish working eCommuting programs to trade these emission reduction credits helps maintain a robust economy while creating a net reduction in emissions across the region.

Myth: Record-keeping for such a program must be burdensome. As an executive, I don't want to be responsible for keeping track of mileage and emissions for each of my employees.

REALITY: Using state-of-the-art "Teletrips" software provided at no cost to all participants, emissions reductions will be calculated automatically. The responsibility for accounting and maintaining records of the each company's credits lies with a regional agency already identified in each pilot city. We have designed this program to keep record keeping to a minimum.

Myth: eCommuting only works in high-tech industries - for programmers and other technical employees.

REALITY: Just as virtually every U.S. household has phone service, eCommuting works for the broadest spectrum of professions that rely on telecommunications for work - researchers, writers, accountants, lawyers, consultants, and administrative staff.

Myth: I won't be able to find my eCommuting employees in a crisis.

REALITY: Technology has made this problem obsolete. Cell phones, pagers, and e-mail make it easy to contact your eCommuting employees quickly and inexpensively.

Myth: There is no benefit to my company to do this. While it might provide for greater employee satisfaction, there is no bottom-line benefit for an employer to initiate this program.

REALITY: eCommuting allows companies to reduce costs, while improving employee productivity. Depending on the size of the program, the net result can be a huge profit increase for participating companies. A recent cost-benefit analysis shows that the employer's potential annual benefits for a part-time eCommuter can be as high as $14,388. This figure includes reductions in real estate costs, decreased employee absenteeism, decreased employee turnover rates, and increased productivity.
(Source: International Telework Association & Council Oct. 1999)

Myth: Communication and social interaction will break down if my employees eCommute. This will cause isolation, and employee dissatisfaction.

REALITY: An eCommuter is just as available by phone and e-mail as they are on the days they are in the office. Since the average eCommuter is away from the office only one or two days per week, there is plenty of opportunity for interaction between managers and employees, and among employees.

TELECOMMUTING FAQ's

What types of jobs are appropriate for telecommuting?

Jobs where a person often works alone, handling information such as reports, proposals, data or research are most appropriate for telecommuting. Writers, salespersons, accountants, programmers, graphic artists, researchers, engineers, architects, public relations professionals--all are prime candidates for telecommuting.

However, to gain benefits from telecommuting it need not be full time. Since most telecommuters spend two to three days a week at their central office, it's easy to save project work, reading, report drafting and research for the days at home and use office time for face-to-face meetings, team sessions, and use of specialized office equipment.

What are the benefits of telecommuting?

Increasingly, private and public organizations are adopting telecommuting as a business strategy. There are a variety of reasons: global competition, the need for 24-hour customer support, technological improvements, workers' desire for increased flexibility, and the need to reduce overhead.

Recruitment tool
Many companies use telecommuting as a perk to attract and retain top talent. The Dallas Museum of Art searched far and wide for the best expert on European art when it hired Dorothy Kosinski as curator, even though she continues to live in Basel, Switzerland. Long-distance relationships also avoid the costs of relocation, estimated at around $80,000 per employee.
Expanded labor pool
Micro Focus, headquartered in Newbury, England, has several computer programmers working from home--one lives in Florida. Home-based work also gives organizations the ability to attract a wider range of workers including the physically challenged, parents with young children, people with eldercare responsibilities, and members of dual-career families.
Staffing flexibility
America West Vacations, located in Phoenix, moved a group of agents home. Operations manager Bill Reed reports improved customer service, loyalty and job ownership, and says that his employees regard telecommuting as "an indirect raise."
Reduced sick leave
Home-based telecommuters continue to work at home with a cold or other minor ailment that may have kept them out of the office. In fact, telecommuters work longer hours and more workdays than the average employee.
Increased productivity
Teleworkers and their managers report that workers get more done when out of the office. In an AT&T-sponsored survey in October, 1995 of Fortune 1000 managers, 58% reported increased worker productivity. The State of California's Telecommuting Pilot Program experienced productivity increases of 10 to 30%.
Reduced stress
Time is a scarce commodity in today's stressed-out society. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration ranks stress among the top 10 reasons for missing work. It's estimated that the American worker spends an average of an hour a day commuting to and from work. Translated into yearly figures, that's the equivalent of almost six workweeks.
Disaster preparedness
Companies with teleworkers can keep going when disaster strikes. Organizations with telecommuting programs were able to get back to business within hours of the LA earthquake in January, 1994. Federal employees in Oklahoma City, fearful to return to work after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in April of 1995, were permitted to work in satellite telework centers in the suburbs. Home workers armed with modems and laptops kept many eastern seaboard companies open during the blizzard of '96 and the ice storms of '98.
Environmental benefits
"If 10% of the nation's workforce telecommuted one day a week, we would avoid the frustration of driving 24.4 million miles, we'd breathe air with 12,963 tons less air pollution and we'd conserve more than 1.2 million gallons of fuel each week." -- Carol Browner, Former Administrator of the EPA
Facility cost savings
If workers share offices on alternate days for example, the amount of floor space is significantly reduced. When IBM consolidated 400,000 square feet of office space into a 100,000 square-foot facility at Cranford, New Jersey, they set it up on the hotel principle. Workers check in with a computerized receptionist that assigns them a cubicle and switches their calls to the appropriate cubby.
Pacific Bell installed a "hotel" at its headquarters in San Ramon, California. The building housed 7,200 employees and was bursting at the seams. By instituting hoteling, the company avoided having to lease another building at a cost savings of $9 million in the first year and $3.1 million in years two through five.
In 1995, Hewlett-Packard implemented telecommuting and virtual office programs for its sales department. Employees could decide whether they wished to stay in the office, telecommute a few days a week, or move out of the office entirely. Management reports that sales have gone up, productivity increased, and more time is spent with the customer since telecommuting began.

How much does a program cost?

A telecommuting program doesn't cost much. Costs incurred include phone calls, PC equipment and office supplies for the telecommuter. The administering agencies in each pilot city are also providing consulting for the employers to aid the company in a smooth transition.

Are there any disadvantages?

Telecommuting is not for everyone. Some disadvantages include boredom, isolation, and procrastination. Since telecommuters are at home, workaholics may find it difficult to end their day. Also, temptations from children, neighbors or television can easily distract the teleworker. Some people may miss the social aspect of work. Others may fear that they are out of the loop by being at home or that their employers and coworkers think they are less committed to hard work. That is why the eCommute program is ideal in that it can be anywhere from one day a week to more. Every time a car is kept off of the road it is beneficial to the environment.

TRADING FAQ's

What are pollution markets?
The Acid Rain Program of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments created a market system to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from coal burning power plants. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the main component of acid rain and is responsible for health and environmental damage throughout the country. Prior to the Acid Rain Program, SO2 emissions were targeted through regulations. However, utilities managed to avoid compliance and emissions continued to increase at a rate of one percent annually through the 1980s.

Under the Acid Rain Program, power plants must have "permission" to pollute. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues allowances, representing one ton of SO2, to participating power plants. As of January 1, 2000, all coal-burning power plants are required to take part. Power plants can only emit the pollution if they have the allowances to account for it. These allowances can be bought, sold, and banked. A facility that does not have enough allowances can buy them, while a facility with low pollution emissions can sell any extra allowances for a profit. Each facility may decide how it will comply with the program. Some facilities install pollution control technologies to reduce emissions and the need for allowances, while others purchase the needed difference. Each year, the EPA distributes a decreasing amount of allowances, increasing the price and value of each allowance. In the program's seven years, SO2 emissions have been reduced by 35%.

What makes this program interesting is that anyone can buy allowances. The price of one ton of SO2 changes daily due to market forces. At the end of 1999, one ton was averaging at $200 compared to the lowest price of $68 in 1995. Individuals interested in purchasing allowances are not required to buy an entire ton. Rather, individuals may purchase portions of allowances.One ton of pollution prevents $4000 in damage to human health and the environment.

What is the Future of the Air We Breathe?
Tough question. The short-term trends are mixed. Despite the good news about new ozone standards, nitrogen oxide rules, and a market that is reducing sulfur dioxide emissions by almost 40%, the overall trends are not good. Specific challenges include:

A booming economy has increased the demand for electricity meaning we are burning more coal than we have in years. This burning is increasing emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and particulate matter.

Transportation emissions are increasing at a furious pace. Over the past two decades the number of cars on the roads has increased by over 50% and the vehicle miles traveled has more than doubled. Emissions of NOx from autos has increased to over 40% of all NOx emissions nationwide despite cleaner cars - we keep buying more of them so we outstrip the cleaner technology. Interestingly, we have also found that these emissions have shifted the balance on acid rain and now sulfur emissions are the smaller contributor and nitric acid from NOx emissions are making up the bulk of these damaging rains.

Asthma rates in the US have increased by over 100% in the past 30 years. Childhood asthma has been increasing at an even more rapid pace. While there are no known causes of asthma there is a great deal of evidence that air pollution, especially ozone and particulates, increase the likelihood of having an attack. This trend has seemingly been accelerating making the new ozone and particulate standards increasingly important.

Finally, the recent White House Report on Global Climate Change indicates that we have already seen a 1 degree increase in average temperatures worldwide and that the growing use of cars and home computers and a booming economy all lead us to an escalation of green house gas emissions, not a reduction. As a result, we can anticipate future climate shifting although what that means at any given location is still the subject of a great deal of uncertainty. Clearly, this pollution poses a potentially major impact on the environment and individual's quality of life. This trend is made all the more dangerous due to unwillingness, or inability, of the political structure in this country to come to some consensus and to take some action to reduce carbon emissions.

All together, this makes for an uneasy picture. While on the one hand we are slowly bringing major pollution sources under control (with the exception of CO2). On the other hand, individual based pollution is increasing at a furious pace. We all seem to feel that our small piece of the pollution picture is negligible forgetting that there are 260 million of us. While driving our car creates only the tiniest of problems we have to multiply that by 100 million and it is a huge problem. The same is true for our use of electricity, household cleaners, and even water. We are all significant polluters because we are part of a larger group of polluters. We all need to change our behavior as we push utilities to change theirs.