Computers replacing paper - a pro-environment move?

"This year Chinese National People’s Political Consultative Conference (NPPCC) handed out 2,500 laptop computers to delegates, saving huge quantities of paper. Many people regarded this as a pro-environment move."

I think this so-called "pro-environment move" is likely to stoke a great deal of controversy. The energy wasted through excessive power consumption by office equipment is very probably much worse than just wasting paper (the author also points out the importance of dealing effectively with electronic waste). What's more, there is no evidence whatsoever that the NPPCC delegates who have been handed laptops have the skills necessary to use them. Are they going to make effective use of them, or are they just going to end up printing the relevant documents out anyway? We have no way of knowing.

I also doubt the premise that "work done at home is low-carbon work." I'd be grateful if someone out there could give me a more detailed explanation of this? I think the precise definition of "low carbon work" needs a bit more research - is the "paperless office" necessarily a low-carbon workplace? What criteria are we using?

Low-carbon living is a combination of technology and free-will

Technology is changing our lives. Companies like Google, Dell, and Cisco are trying to use scientific products to change the way energy is used. It is also important, however, to take into account personal will. If we only practise "green work" but not "green life", low-carbon living will still not be realized. Therefore, I think on the one hand, we need the technological advancement; on the other, we also need to change our life style. yfy

(translated by xiulu)

encouragement

Companies which take the initiative to reform their style at work should be encouraged and supported by the society. Thus other companies will be motivated as well. To cut the cost at work, many companies only have pretty tiny work spaces, and it is really painful to work surrounded by machines.

Reply to comment 1

It seems that we cannot see the relationship between low-carbon working and paperless working. Working at home saves you both time spent on transport and therefore resources, which is obviously beneficial.

Translated by Renate

Try SOHO Technology 3.0  

Low-carbon living must cover both aspects of "Office-in-Every-Home" and "Home-in-Every-Office" as described and proposed in the document available at www.sohominium.blogspot.com. with expertise / experience relevant to the Chinese context / environments.

Comment about the number 4

I don’t think that we can simply compare the work in office and at home, and neither is it definitely better for saving energy. For example, by working from home, you can conserve the energy used for transportation, but if everyone used their house as an office, they would all have to use their air conditioning, even if they only set their air conditioning unit to 26 degrees (of course there will be also be other sources of consumption). So, this kind of energy consumption over multiple locations will also add up. Thus, making a simple comparison doesn't have any meaning. YFy This comment is translated by Tingting Xia

the number 6 is reasonable

Although we often talk about environmental protection as starting from small actions, but when you are talking about a concept such as the low carbon office, small things don’t make such a lot of difference. A general standardisation is important. I believe that most people would like to work at home, but because it is not easy to implement this on a large scale as it would impact on the work content, quality and efficiency. Neither a company nor an individual can bear making a sacrifice in work efficiency and quality for the sake of saving transportation consumption costs, and in the long term, it will not be conducive to the development of the environment or resources. I firmly believe that environmental issues cannot be a singled out and be discussed separately. Outside the context of human living and the social development, the meaning of talking about environmental protection disappears. --Vegeball Translated by Tingting Xia

Besieged cities: Low-carbon countryside, high-carbon cities

Every farmer longs for a high-carbon lifestyle, whereas city individuals hope for a low-carbon lifestyle. It makes me think of the character in the film Dream Factory who yearned for a farmer's lifestyle. On top of eating his uncle's family chicken, he quickly forgot his original far-reaching ambition.

Translated by Nathalie Thorne

Comprehensive comparison

Concerning whether one should work at home or in the office, the point comment 6 makes is true: it is not possible to use a single standard to make a comparison. To find which work method actually is the most low-carbon and environmentally friendly needs a comprehensive standard for comparison. A possible outcome is that the most environmentally friendly low carbon work place is different for different professions.

Translated by Nathalie Thorne

Reply to No. 7

"I think a majority of people would be very happy working from home. But for reasons of work content, quality and efficiency, it's not something that is widely practiced."

This is absolutely spot on. One can't assume that savings on time and energy alone automatically means that working from home is universally applicable across every profession. Working from home has certain limits to its application. It would be easy for an interested social institution to produce a comprehensive comparison between working from home and working in the office based on the requirements each profession. This would provide people with a standard against which to make their choice.

However, I disagree over the issue of whether environment issues can be debated in isolation. Sheeding other factors and discussing a concept in simple terms has its uses - it provides a much more convenient background for debate. You can always clarify the concept later according to its specific context - this is a fairly standard way of researching problems.