Should the government encourage people to work from home to save fuel?
- Written by The Conversation
The current fuel crisis, instigated by the war in the Middle East, has prompted countries to respond in different ways to ensure their fuel supply.
One popular measure has been directing people to work from home to save fuel. Many countries in Asia, including Indonesia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Thailand, Sri Lanka and most recently, Malaysia, have implemented remote work orders for some workers or four-day work weeks.
The Australian government has shown little appetite to adopt similar measures, despite Energy Minister Chris Bowen referring to remote work as “a sensible thing to do”.
But what does the evidence say about whether government-mandated work from home orders, even if it’s just one day a week, are a good idea? The short answer is a qualified “yes”, but there are lots of factors to consider.
Weaning people away from cars
This oil crisis is the third since the start of the decade. One of the other two crises was also due to war: the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
A silver lining to these crises is that they can help reduce people’s dependency on cars. Urban planners have advocated for reduced reliance on cars for decades, to little avail.
My team’s research in Queensland has repeatedly shown locals are attached to driving and road infrastructure. Under normal circumstances, instances of people voluntarily giving up or reducing car use are few and far between.
Yet, even in this car obsessed culture, cycling rates went up during the pandemic, as did public transport use once fares were permanently reduced to 50 cents.
This shows drastic measures or extreme conditions can break entrenched habits.
But what about working from home? Let’s take a closer look at the evidence. The following draws on findings from a systematic review of the academic literature.
Read more: Politics aside, new research shows there are good financial reasons to back working from home
The pros
There are many environmental, social, and economic benefits associated with working from home (WFH). And, many are already used to it and the digital infrastructure is (mostly) in place.
Travel behaviours of people working from home can reduce traffic. This, in turn, can improve fuel combustion efficiency and reduce transport-related pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. From an environmental perspective, remote work is a good policy option for cities and regions struggling with pollution and congestion.
In suburbs with plenty of service and amenities, working from home can lead people to patronise nearby businesses more, rather than shopping or running errands near their workplace or along the commute. People engaging more locally may enhance community wellbeing and public health.
Another benefit of remote work is a potential growth in active travel for non-work activities, such as people walking around their neighbourhood to get lunch. This may lower Medicare expenditures, as walking and cycling are known to promote good health.
In terms of budgets, avoiding long commutes can help people save on car maintenance, workplace parking, tolls and insurance. The time and money formerly wasted sitting in traffic can be used for productive or recreational activities.
Spreading traffic throughout the day rather than concentrating it in peak hours also helps cities “sweat their assets” – that is, make more efficient use of existing road infrastructure.
The cons
Attaining the potential benefits of remote work is not straightforward, partly because current urban patterns were not created for this work style.
Instead, Australian cities are “zoned”, with housing, industrial work, service work, shopping and entertainment segregated into separate and distant locations.
At present, only pricey inner-city areas – such as Sydney’s Darlinghurst, Melbourne’s Fitzroy, and Brisbane’s West End – offer a good mix of land-uses. Maintaining a decent quality of life by being able to easily access what you need nearby while working from home, is largely limited to the privileged.
In more remote suburbs, lifestyle adjustments can offset any gains from working from home. People may use the time saved from commuting for longer, more frequent, and more car-based trips for non-work purposes. The phenomenon of induced demand can also come into play: when traffic flows more smoothly, people may choose to drive instead of staying home, erasing the initial environmental benefits.
Further, if employees move to the outer suburbs in search of cheaper housing when allowed to work from home some days a week, remaining commutes could become longer. CBD-based businesses, such as restaurants and shops, may follow remote workers to the suburbs, potentially increasing private car use.
In the end, this could lead to more pollution and higher infrastructure costs for all transport modes.
Working from home can also add stress for parents and caregivers, who must juggle work and family responsibilities under the same roof.
Finally, if many more people work from home, demand for buses, trams, and trains would likely fall, potentially threatening their financial viability. In a widespread WFH scenario, public transport could be the biggest loser.
The bottom line
A real drop in travel, enough to make a difference to conserve fuel, only happens when most employees work from home at least three days a week.
Policymakers shouldn’t just nudge people to work from home or take public transport. They should require businesses to let staff work remotely if their job doesn’t need face-to-face contact.
Of course that won’t work for everyone, and there are downsides. But with fuel prices forecast to remain high even if the war ended immediately, having more people work remotely would help ease the burden of driving on both the environment and on many people’s wallets.
