Low Carbon Economy, 2011, 2, 41-47
doi:10.4236/lce.2011.21007 Published Online March 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/lce)
41
Broadband and Telecommuting: Helping the U.S.
Environment and the Economy
Joseph P. Fuhr1,2, Stephen Pociask2
1Economics Widener University Chester, PA, USA; 2The American Consumer Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.
Received December 3rd, 2010; revised December 20th, 2010; accepted December 29th, 2010.
ABSTRACT
This study examines how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. through the widesp read delivery of broad band
services and the expansion of telecommuting. Telecommuting can reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next 10
years by approximately 588.2 tons of which 247.7 million tons is due to less driving, 28.1 million tons is due to redu ced
office construction, and 312.4 million tons because of less energy usage by businesses. This paper explores these
broadband services and their effects on the environment, specifically as a means to achieve better and cleaner energy
use, while enhancing economic output, worker productivity and the standard of living of American consumers.
Keywords: Broadband, Economy, Environment, Telecommuting
1. Introduction
The world is becoming more and more aware of and
concerned about changes in the atmosphere due to ex-
treme weather events, melting glaciers, and changing
ecosystems. As the Washington Post noted in a special
report about global warming and climate change, “broad
scientific evidence suggests that carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions have already triggered changes
in the Earth’s climate and that more disruptive changes
lie ahead” [1]. The story discussed a range of costly and
daunting measures to address the problem by reducing
emissions.
This paper adds to the discussion of how to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by documenting the reductions
that can be realized by the widespread delivery of
broadband services in the U.S. Current carbon dioxide
emissions in the U.S. hover around 5.8 billion tons and
are growing [2]. In this study we examine only one as-
pect of broadband’s ability to d ecrease carbon emissions,
that of telecommuting. Broadband can not only decrease
pollution but also contribute to economic growth and job
creation.
2. Present Situation
In 2008, there wer e 256 million motor veh icles register ed
in the U.S., with automobiles and trucks accounting for
54% and 39% of these vehicles, respectively [3]. By one
source, the use of personal vehicles accounts for 30% to
50% of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as similar ef-
fects on toxic water and air pollutants [4]. The typical
personal vehicle produces 5.0 tons of carbon dioxide
annually [5], as well as methane, nitrous oxide and vari-
ous man-made gases. The roads needed to move vehicles
are also a threat to the environment, as they replace for-
ests and affect animal habitats. These roads are usually
constructed with petroleum components, their mainte-
nance expends energy and resources, and they produce
hazardous runoff into nearby streams.
A number of legislative proposals have called for re-
quiring more energy efficient automobiles and encour-
aging the productio n of alternative fu els [6 ,7]. While pro-
viding benefits, however, these proposals are likely to
produce more expensive automobiles and significantly
higher fuel costs. The most popular alternative fuel,
ethanol, is typically produced from corn and is more ex-
pensive than gasoline. Since corn prices have increased
faster than other goods and services, the outlook for etha-
nol as an alternative source of energy will mean that co rn
prices are likely to continue to increase faster than the
price of other goods and services. Since corn is used as
feedstock, as well as for cereals and other foods, higher
prices will mean higher food prices for consumers, in
addition to higher energ y prices [8]. Moreover, the use of
many of these alternative fuels, like ethanol and other
bio-based energies, still result in carbon emissions. One

Broadband and Telec o m mu t i n g : Help i ng the U.S. Environment and the Economy 42
advantage is that domestically-produced ethanol re-
lieves some pressure on oil-imports. Alternate fuels still
leave policymakers with difficult choices that pose high
costs for consumers, at least in the short run, but the cost
of oil is likely to rise as reserves are depleted.
3. Telecommuting and Telework
Broadband services help provide seamless data, video
and voice communications, permitting workers to use
their home in the same manner as a businesses’ office in
what is described as telecommuting and telework. Tele-
commuting is the use of telecommunications technology
to allow employees to work from their homes and avoid
the use of transportation to commute to and from work
[9]. Telework is the use of telecommunications to work
anywhere other than the home office, such as telework
sites satellite offices, and remote locations [10]. Another
group not covered by eith er term is home-based workers,
who consist of self -e mployed w orker s who w ork at home
instead of renting office space. Of the 25.4 million firms
in the U.S., nearly 20 million (77%) are non-employer
firms [11]. Of these, nearly 85% are in service industries,
many of which are very conducive to home-based work-
ing arrangements [11]. However, the amount of tele-
commuting in the U.S. is constrained by the fact that
only about one-half of U.S. households have a high-
speed connection to the Internet [12]. These statistics
suggest that there is potential for growth in telecommut-
ing.
Based on data thro ugh early 2006, only 2% of wor kers
telecommute full time and 8% operate businesses from
home, suggesting that 10% regularly work at home [13].
However, 25% had the potential to regularly work from
home [13]. Similarly, a survey by Dieringer Research
found 14.7 million individuals working almost every day
from home during 2006 [14]. Given that there are 146
million persons employed in the U.S [15], the percent of
full time home workers is (again) about 10%. However,
28.7% of workers work at least one day per month from
home, and 44.8% report having done some work from
home [14]. Therefore, the potential for expanding tele-
commuting could be significant, providing that workers
and employers see the benefits of working remotely from
the office.
In addition, the potential for increased telecommuting
for government workers is high. According to the Office
of Personal Management 41% of federal workers are
eligible for telecommuting but only 19% do [16], which
constitutes 7.7% of total federal workforce [16 ]. Senators
Landrieu (D-La.) and Stevens (R-Ak.) have introduced a
bill that will make more federal government employees
eligible for telecommutin g [16].
4. Potential Benefi ts of Telecommuting
Balaker adeptly describes telecommuting as “the most
cost-effective way to reduce rush-hour traffic and it can
improve how a weary nation copes with disasters, from
hurricanes to terrorist attacks” [17]. He states:
It helps improve air quality, highway safety, and even
health care as new technologies allow top-notch physi-
cians to be (virtually) anywhere. Telecommuting expands
opportunities for th e handicap ped, conserves energy, and
– when used as a substitute for offshore outsourcing – it
can help allay globalization fears and save American
jobs. It can even make companies more profitable, which
is good news for our nation’s managers, many of whom
have long been suspicious of telecommuting [17].
The major gain to the environment from telecommut-
ing is the decrease in the number of automobile trips. A
recent survey found that 91% of workers commute by car,
4% by ride sharing, 3% by public transit and 3% by other
means [13]. Telecommuting is zero emission transporta-
tion. Studies show that telecommuters reduce daily trips
on days that they telecommute by up to 51% and auto-
mobile travel by up to 77% [17].
Since people are staying home instead of driving to
work, telecommuting reduces fuel consumption and im-
proves air quality. There is less traffic congestion, oil
consumption, and noise and air pollution as a result of
telecommuting. Since fewer cars are needed, telecom-
muting will also save emissions and pollution associated
with automobile production. With fewer cars needed for
commuting, car production can be reduced. Another
benefit is that less infrastructure will be needed, avoiding
construction and road maintenance costs, as well as re-
ducing hazardou s runoff into nearby streams.
On the other hand, those who telecommute may not
save the entire trip-miles to and from work. They may
still use their car to drop off a child at daycare or pick up
groceries, as they formerly did on route to and from an
office. They may move further from an urban area to take
advantage of a rural setting, increasing the commute dis-
tance when they actually go to an office. These offsets
have been referred to as the “rebound effect” and more
study is needed to determine how they impact the overall
savings which telecommuting can potentially deliver.
5. Stakeholders that Benefit from
Telecommuting
Who benefits from telecommuting? In general, telecom-
muting can benefit various stakeholders such as consum-
ers, employees, employers and society especially the
elderly and disabled.
5.1. Benefits to Employees
Employees can benefit in various ways from telecom-

Broadband and Telec o m mu t i n g : Help i ng the U.S. Environment and the Economy43
muting. Telecommuting can provide job flexibility, which
can improve the balance between work and personal time.
Telecommuters have increased job satisfaction, a distrac-
tion free environment, better time management, are less
involved in office politics and generally have less stress.
Pitney Bowes offers telecommuting “to enhance employee
effectiveness and positively impact the quality of life of
workers by minimizing the stress, fatigue, time and cost
associated with commuting to and from work” [18].
Also, by eliminating the commute to work people have
more time for work or leisure. According to US Depart-
ment of Census data, the average commute is 26.4 min-
utes each way or 53 minutes daily [19]. Telecommuting
allows workers to find more time savings by reorganiz-
ing their lives to take advantage of many different kinds
of low congestion periods. Those who shop during off-
peak find parking easier and they also spend less time at
the checkout line [17]. Quality of life increases as they
workout in a less crowded health club which saves time.
During break s from work, they can do household cho res.
They can take their children to and from school, and be
home when the children leave or arrive.
There is also gas savings as well as lower mainten ance
costs as usage of the vehicle decreases. By one estimate,
the typical worker pays US$688 annually for work-re-
lated gasoline, and represents a direct savings for tele-
commuters [13,19]. This decrease in usage from tele-
commuting means that fewer cars are needed. Telecom-
muters save money by eating out less, decreasing daycare
needs, and spending less on work-wardrobes and dry
cleaning. There is also the potential for a tax deduction
for a home office.
5.2. Benefits to Employers
Employers have also gained from telecommuting. There
are various estimates of the gain in productivity as a re-
sult of telecommuting. Allenby reports that Siemens,
Compaq, Cisco, Merrill Lynch, Nortel and American
Express have reported increases in productivity as a re-
sult of telework programs of between 10% and 50%, and
a five-year Smart Valley study found an average of 25%
increase in productivity for participating companies [20].
Another advantage is that performance is measured by
results rather than hours in the office. While absenteeism
increases when employees are sick or have a sick child,
telecommuting may allow the worker to be somewhat
productive. Also if an employee has a contagious illn ess,
telecommuting will reduce the spread of illnesses to
other workers, thereby increasing productivity. Thus both
absenteeism and presenteeism decreases. It is estimated
that presenteeism costs US companies about US$150
billion a year [17] and that the increased flexibility in
scheduling as a result of telework saves companies
around US$2 000 per teleworker annually in reduced
absenteeism [20].
Bad weather and emergencies, like terrorism, fires or
natural disasters, are less likely to affect employees’ abil-
ity to get to work. For example, JetBlue uses at-home
agents for its reservation center which greatly increases
the flexibility of the firm, as well as reducing the cost of
booking a flight by 20% [20]. A company spokesperson
stated:
When things get busy, like during a weather event, we
can send an e-mail to all agents asking them to log in to
help. The response is immediate – we don’t have to wait
for them to come in [21].
Studies have shown that telecommuting decreases the
turnover rate which can significantly de crease the cost of
training and recruiting. Best Buy has instituted a program
for telecommuters called ROWE. This program has a
3.2% lower voluntary turnover rate than non-ROWE
teams. Best Buy has estimated the per-employee cost of
turnover is US$102 000 and productivity is 35% higher
for ROWE team members [22]. Also employees are more
loyal, focused and energized. Telecommuting allows
employees who otherwise would not be able to commute
such as mothers, the elderly and the disabled the oppor-
tunity to be gainfully employed. Since telecommuting
increases the pool of applicants and thus the quality of
employees it can give a firm a competitive advantage by
being the employer of choice. A senior Director at Sun
Microsystems states “We found that our remote employ-
ees were among our most excellent performers” [23].
As a result of telecommuting, firms will need less
equipment, office space, parking spaces, office equip-
ment, supplies and other amenities. IBM claims it saves
almost US$1 billion a year in avoided real estate costs,
thanks to telecommuting [20]. Sun Microsystems esti-
mated that it saved US$69 million in real estate cost in
2005, as a result of its telecommuting program [23], and
it was able to decrease office space use by 30% after im-
plementing its “iWork” program [24]. Nortel and AT&T
estimate telecommuting saves US$20 million and US$25
million in real-estate costs, respectively, while Unisys cut
office space 90% [17]. In one study, AT&T found that
employee productivity improved by US$65 million, in-
creased labor retention saved US$15 million [20], and
teleworkers avoided commuting 100 million miles, which
reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 45 000 tons less of
CO2 emissions, or around 1.8 tons per teleworker [20 ]. In
that study, broadband access to the Internet was found to
be a critical success factor [20]. Studies also found en-
ergy savings because construction was avoided and be-
cause the energy required in a home office was substan-
tially less than in a commercial office. For instance, one
study found a reduction in energy use and a savings in

Broadband and Telec o m mu t i n g : Help i ng the U.S. Environment and the Economy 44
real estate costs of US$25 million [20]. Another estimate
found that home offices use less energy than a commer-
cial office – a difference between 3 000 to 4 400 kWh
per year [25]. Romm estimated that 3.5 billion square
feet of saved commercial space would result in the
avoidance of 35 million metric tons of greenhouse gases
[25]. Also, the avoidance of construction of these build-
ings would save another 36.4 million metric tons of
greenhouse pol lut i on [ 25].
5.3. Other Benefits to Society
Besides the environmental benefits of telecommuting,
there are various other benefits to society. With less
commuting, the number of automobile accidents and
deaths will decrease as well as maintenance and infra-
structure cost for roads, there will be less of a strain on
public transit. There are also ben efits to rural economies,
since people can live where they work. Workers can also
supplement their earnings by using technology to earn
money by working at home as a second job. Decreasing
the amount of pollution will also decrease health-related
problems especially respiratory ailments which are exac-
erbated by particulate pollution. Two groups that find it
particularly difficult to commute to work and could par-
ticularly benefit from the ability to work from home are
the disabled and elderly. The ability to telecommute
could result in increased opportunities for gainful em-
ployment. Also, telecommuting can lead to homeshoring
which “is the transfer of service industry employment
from offices to home-based employees with appropriate
telephone and Internet facilities” [26 ]. This will decrease
the flight of jobs overseas.
5.3.1. Benefits to Elderly and Disabled
Broadband can greatly increase the quality of life and
potential job opportunities for the elderly and disabled.
Litan found that broadband deployment and use lowered
medical costs and institutionalized living, while increas-
ing labor force participation for seniors and individuals
with disabilities [27]. All told, Litan estimated the cumu-
lative benefit to be at least US$927 billion over a 25-year
period (with future benefits discounted in 2005 US$s)
[27].
Litan states that “the broader use of the Internet, and
specifically ‘broadband’ technologies, to deliver health
care services and information to senior citizens and indi-
viduals with disabilities, and to make it easier for mem-
bers of both populations to work, if they are willing to do
so” [27]. Given that many elderly and disabled are un-
able to travel to work, telecommuting offers expanded
work opportunities. The potential for increased employ-
ment is especially important to disabled Americans
whose unemployment rate is 75% [17].
5.3.2. Homeshoring
Reports suggest that millions of jobs have been out-
sourced to overseas companies, a phenomena referred to
as offshoring. One report cites that half of the Fortune
500 companies have offshored jobs [28], and Forester
Research predicts 3 million jobs will be moved overseas
by 2015 [29,30]. Concerns over these lost domestic jobs
have led to lawmakers crafting over 200 bills designed to
impede offshoring [17]. The alternative, homeshoring,
can be the domestic answer to this exodus, and broad-
band technology can play an importan t role in this rever-
sal. Homeshoring is the use of home-based agents to
field various types of customer care inquirers. “Virtual”
call centers employ home based agents which takes away
the need for the brick-and-mortar. Early adopters of
homeshoring include JetBlue Airways, Alpine Access,
PHH Arval and LiveOps [21]. Homeshoring encourages
a diverse workforce that could include mothers, retirees,
students, and people with disabilities and people who
want maximum flexibility [21]. Technology has the po-
tential to change the landscape of customer care services.
Growth in broadband services to the home, including
voice-over-Internet telecommunications and softswitch
technologies, has decreased labor and facility costs. One
study estimated that in a traditional call center in the
United States costs are around US$31 per employee hour,
including overhead and training, whereas home based
agents can decrease cost by up to US$10 an hour. Home-
based retention rates are around 85%, whereas conven-
tional call centers have a retention rate of between 10%
and 20% [31]. The higher productivity and lower cost
have made homeshoring a competitive alternative to off-
shore outsourcing, which has had a negative impact on
domestic employment opportunities. The presence of
broadband infrastructure in rural communities can serve
to develop a pool of online workers, which may attract
information-based businesses, such as IT development,
software and IT service businesses, as well as back-office
telecommunications centers. By increasing broadband
development and use, as well as encouraging telework
participation, a pool of flexible workers can be drawn
upon that can stem, and possibly reverse, the loss of do-
mestic jobs.
As worker productivity and morale increases, a firm’s
per unit costs decrease. Given competitive markets, de-
creases in per unit costs result in lower prices and in-
creased quality for consumers. In addition, the quality of
the customer service experience will improve, since do-
mestic-based telecommuters can more easily and quickly
be called upon to deal with peak periods of demand,
thereby reducing long hold times in customer service call
centers and help hotlines.

Broadband and Telec o m mu t i n g : Help i ng the U.S. Environment and the Economy45
6. Estimation of Environmental Benefits of
Telecommuting
6.1. Direct Benefits
On an average work day, millions of Americans com-
mute between home and work by way of their personal
vehicle. According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there
are 146 million persons employed in the U.S [15], and
transportation statistics show that 91% of workers (or
132.9 million workers) use personal cars to commute to
work [32]. Assuming that that the average number of
people in a carpool is 3, approximately 127.5 million
personal vehicles are regularly used to commute 132.9
million workers. This activity expends time, creates con-
gestion, costs lives in car accidents, and it wastes motor
vehicles, maintenance, fuel and public resources.
The average U.S. worker commutes 15 miles and 26.4
minutes one-way to th eir job [19], which means that 918
billion miles are traveled and 1.7 trillio n minutes are lost
in the course of a 240 day commuting year. To put this
into context, the travel time wasted is equivalent to the
annual paid hours of 17.2 million production workers.
The lost wages and cost of the vehicle (including gas,
depreciation, insurance and maintenance) would be nearly
US$1 trillion or, incredibly, 7.2% of the total gross do-
mestic product of the U.S. In other words, for every
US$14 produced in the economy; US$1 is wasted just
getting employees to work using their personal vehicle.
The effect on the environment is equally stunning.
Assuming fuel efficiency of 21 miles per gallon, com-
muting to work using personal vehicles consumes 44
billion gallons of gasoline per year. In terms of green-
house gasses, private vehicles used during commuting
release 424 million tons of carbon dioxide into the at-
mosphere each year [33]. In addition, other emissions
include 23 million tons of carbon monoxide, 1.8 million
tons of volatile organic carbons and 1.5 million tons of
oxides of nitrogen each year [34]. All of these statistics
ignore the fuel expended for public transportation, gov-
ernment vehicles and other vehicles, most notably those
used for construction, material transportation, shipping
and commercial sales fleets.
As the literature presented in this study shows, tele-
commuting can redu ce pollutants withou t sacrificing, and
likely augmenting, economic productivity. As previously
noted, around 10% of workers telecommute full time,
approximately one-tenth of these economic and envi-
ronmental costs are already being saved, which approxi-
mates an annual reduction of 45 million tons of green-
house gases.
According to a survey conducted by Rockbridge the
potential for telecommuting could reach 25% participa-
tion. One holdback on telecommutin g is th e fact that only
half of U.S. households have broadband services, which
suggests (again) that telecommuting could well double in
the U.S [12]. Using the economic and environmental
costs discussed earlier in this paper, a doubling of the
current level of telecommuting, to say 20%, would mean
that one-fifth of the environmental cost of commuting
could be elim inat ed.
To highlight the future (potential) benefit of telecom-
muting, this study estimates the effect of an increase in
telecommuting equal to an additional 10% of the work-
force over the next ten years. Based on this incremental
increase and using the same calculations as before, the
total economic savings direct time and expense would be
US$96.5 billion, including the cost of 4.4 billion gallons
of gasoline each year. In terms of the environmental
benefits, if 10% more of the workforce could telecom-
mute fulltime, emissions of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere would be reduced by an additional 42.4 mil-
lion tons of carbon dioxide, as well as 2.6 million tons of
other pollutants, which results in 45.0 million fewer tons
of greenhouse gases each year. Over the next ten years,
the cumulative incremental savings would be equal to
247.7 million tons of greenhouse gases. Keep in mind
that these benefits include only those associated with the
use of a personal car, and not wi t h pu bl i c tra nsp o rt at i on.
6.2. Indirect Benefits
While these are potential direct benefits, there are many
indirect benefits, some of which can be approximated,
such as the benefits from reduced traffic. While there are
benefits to drivers who telecommute, the reduction in
traffic bestows a benefit on all other drivers. In other
words, as road congestion is reduced, there are benefits
for those who continue to use the roads, and these bene-
fits could be significant. In 2003, according to the Texas
Transportation Institute, US$63.1 billion worth of time
and fuel was wasted due to traffic congestion during rush
hour in 85 metropolitan areas. This resulted in 3.7 billion
hours per year, which is an average of 47 hours per
commuter and 2.3 billion gallons of gas [35]. As previ-
ously estimated there are 127.5 million work commuter
vehicles. According to 2000 U.S. Census of those com-
muters, 66.9 million or 52.5 percent leave for work be-
tween 6:30 and 8:29 in the morning which will be con-
sidered peak time. John Edwards, chairman and founder
of the Telework Coalition notes that “for every 1% re-
duction in the number of cars on the road there is a 3%
reduction in traffic cong estion” [36]. If the average num-
ber of vehicles on the road during rush is 100 million, a
10% increase in telecommuting would result in 6.7 (6.7%)
million less private vehicles commuting to work during
rush hour, or 20.1% decrease in congestion. In this sce-
nario, the savings in wasted time and fuel would be

Broadband and Telec o m mu t i n g : Help i ng the U.S. Environment and the Economy 46
US$12.7 billon and 744 million hours would be sav ed as
well as 462 million gallons of gasoline, which is equiva-
lent to 4.8 million tons of greenhouse gas not being
emitted into the atmosphere. This study makes no attempt
to forecast future benefits of decreased congestion.
Since telecommuting reduces the need for office space,
there is reduced energy use for a home office versus a
commercial office, as well as energy savings that results
from avoiding office building construction. What would
the savings be, if each fu ll time telecommuter resulted in
one less office? Based on this study’s prediction of the
number of telecommuters that could be added to the ex-
isting base and assuming that the average office worker
utilizes 250 square feet of commercial office space, the
total reduction in office space would equal 3.3 billion
square feet.
Since less corporate office space would be needed,
there is an additional env ironmental savings because less
energy will be expended constructing additional office
space. We assume that for every 1 billion reduction in sq.
ft of construction 8.5 million tons of greenhouse gas is
not produced [37]. Thus by avoiding 3 .3 billion sq. ft. of
construction, 28.1 b illion greenhouse gases would not be
emitted [37]. These estimates do not take into account the
reduction in power plant construction averted as the de-
mand for electricity decreases which i s a one-time benefit .
With less office space and because a home office uses
less energy than a commercial office, there would be less
electrical power used, which would produce additional
environmental benefits. Assuming an average savings of
3500 kWh per home office and 13.3 million telecom-
muters, we estimate that the total energy savings would
be 46.6 billion kWh per year [25]. According to federal
government statistics from the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory 2.3 pounds of CO2 are produced from using
one kWh of electricity [38]. Converting this into tons of
CO2 and including other greenhouse gases, the energy
savings from reduced office space would be 56.8 million
tons of greenhouse gases. This means that over the next
ten years, the incremental cumulative benefit would be
312 million tons of greenhouse gases. Ag ain, these bene-
fits do not include any savings from reduction in com-
muters who use public transportation . The table 1 below
summarizes the environmental benefits of telecommut-
ing.
7. Conclusions
As previously noted, these environmental benefits come
without sacrificing economic output and productivity.
Thus, telecommuting can lead to increased profits for the
firm, better work life balance for the employees, more
employment especially for the disabled, elderly, mothers
and rural residents, and less poll ution and oil consum ption
Table 1. The environmental benefits of telecommuting.
Telecommuting Green
Effects Annual Savings Million Tons
Forecast
Incremental 10
years
Million Tons
Direct Effects from Driving45.0 247.7
Indirect Effects from
Congestion 4.8 N.A.
Office Space Not Built 28.1 28.1
Saved Office Space Energy56.8 312.4
for society, as well as lower prices and better quality of
life. Encouragin g the development of technology su ch as
broadband services, which will facilitate the use of more
telecommuting, could become one of the most important
economic public policy initiatives, because it helps the
environment while augmenting economic growth.
While this study provides a number of simple esti-
mates of the environmental effects of information tech-
nologies, further research is needed to develop a more
comprehensive analysis. Future studies should consider
the increased jobs that could be eligible for telecommut-
ing once high-speed “telepresence”, the ability to feel as
though you are actu ally present, video con ferencing tools
become common. These tools could open up telecom-
muting to those employees whose jobs require face-to-
face contact with peers or clients. This may substantially
increase the potential benefits beyond what has been al-
ready noted in this study. In addition, there are environ-
mental and economic benefits from telecommuting that
would result in reduced public transit use, which have
not been measured in this study. In summary, while this
study attempts to quantify many of the benefits of tele-
commuting, more work is needed.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Mufson, “Climate Change Debate Hinges On Eco-
nomics” Washington Post, July 15, 2007.
[2] Union of Concerned Scientists. http://www.ucusa.org/
global_warming/science/graph-showing-each-countrys
[3] U.S. Federal Highway Administration, “Highway Statis-
tics: 2008,” October 2010.
[4] Global Green News. http://www.globalgreen.org
[5] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Emission Facts:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger
Vehicle,” February, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/clima
te/420f05004.htm
[6] Natural Gas Vehicles for America, “Summary of Legisla-
tive Proposals to Advance the Market Penetration of
Natural Gas Vehicles”. http://www.ngvc.org/pdfs/Summa
ry07NGVLegProp.pdf

Broadband and Telec o m mu t i n g : Help i ng the U.S. Environment and the Economy 47
[7] B. Yacobuuci, “Alternative Fuels and Advanced Tech-
nology Vehicles: Issues in Congress,” Congressional Re-
search Service, September 22, 2010. http://www.fas.org/
sgp/crs/misc/R40168.pdf
[8] R. R. Cooke, “What is the real Cost of Corn Ethanol?”
Financial Sense Editorials, February 2, 2007. http://
www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/cooke/2007/02
02.html
[9] W. Leonhard, “The Underground Guide to Telecommut-
ing,” Addison-Wesley, 1995.
[10] J. M. Nilles, “Managing Telework: Options for Managing
the Virtual Workforce,” John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
[11] U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy,
data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, “Nonemployer
Statistics”. www.sba.gov
[12] Park Associates, “U.S. Residential Broadband Penetration
to Exceed 50% in 2007,” 2007. http://www.parksassociat
es.com/press/press_releases/2007/dig_lifestyles1.htmlat
[13] Rockbridge Associates, “U.S. Workers Waste $3.9 Bil-
lion Annually by Not Telecommuting,” July 2006. www.
rockresearch.com/news_071206.php
[14] Dieringer Research Group, “Telework Trendlines for
2006,” commissioned by WorldatWork, February 2009.
[15] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/
news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
[16] S. Barr, “Senators Push for More Telecommuting,” Wa-
shington Post, March 30, 2007.
[17] T. Balaker, “T he Quiet Success: Telecommut ing’s Impact
on Transportation and Beyond,” Reason Foundation, Los
Angeles, November 2005.
[18] Pitney Bowes, “Commute Options Programs,” http://
www.bestworkplaces.org/pdf/awlp/commute_opts.pdf
[19] U. S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transpor-
tation Statistics, “From Home to Work, the Average
Commute is 26.4 Minutes,” Vol. 3/4, October 2004.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/omnistats/volume_03_is
sue_04/html/entire.html
[20] B. Allenby and J. Roitz, “Implementing the Knowledge
Economy: The Theory and Practice of Telework,” Batten
Institute Working Paper, 2003.
[21] M. Frase-Blunt, “Call Centers Come Home,” HR Maga-
zine, January 2007.
[22] P. J. Kriger, “Flexibility to the Fullest,” Workforce Man-
agement, September 25, 2006.
[23] J. T. Arnold, “Making the Leap,” HR Magazine, May
2006.
[24] R. D. Atkinson and A. S. McKay, “Digital Propensity:
Understanding the Economic Benefits of the Information
Technology Revolution,” The Information & Technology
Foundation, Washington D.C., March 2007.
[25] J. Romm, “The Internet and the New Energy Economy,”
Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, Global Envi-
ronment and Technology Foundation, 2002.
[26] Macmillan English Dictionary. http://www.macmillandict
ionary.com/new-words/050530-homeshoring.htm
[27] R. E. Litan, “Great Expectations: Potential Economic
Benefits to the Nation from Accelerated Broadband De-
ployment to Older Americans and Americans with Dis-
abilities,” New Millennium Research Council, December
2005.
[28] B. Moyers, “The Outsourcing Debate,” Various Reports,
Public Broadcasting Service. www.pbs.org/now/politics/o
utsourcedebate.html and www.pbs.org/now/politics/ out-
source.html
[29] C. Ansberry, “Outsourcing Abroad Draws Debate at
Home,” Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2003.
[30] J. C. McCarthy, “3 Million US Services Jobs to Go Off-
shore,” Forester Research Brief, November 11, 2002.
www.forrester.com/ER/Research/Brief/Excerpt/0,1317,15
900,00.html
[31] S. Loynd, “VIPdesk Helps Chart the Future: Homeshor ing
Brand Ambassadors and the Shifting of the Customer
Management Landsca p e , ” IDC, 2006.
[32] U. S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transpor-
tation Statistics, “National Household Travel Survey:
Daily Travel Quick Facts”. www.bts.gov/programs/na-
tional_household_travel_survey/daily_travel.html
[33] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Green Power
Equivalency Calculator Methodologies”. http://www.
epa.gov/greenpower/pubs/calcmeth.htm#vehicles
[34] Telework Coalition’s Teletrips Emissions Calculator.
http://www.telcoa.org/id134.htm
[35] T. Lomax and D.Schrank, “2005 Annual Urban Mobility
Report,” Texas Tr an sp ortation Instit ut e, 2006.
[36] U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, “It all adds up to cleaner air,” Quarterly
Newsletter, Winter 2006. http://www.italladdsup.gov/
newsletter/winter06/experts.html
[37] Boston Consulting Group, “Paper and the Electronic Me-
dia,” September 1999.
[38] Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center,
“Frequently Asked Global Changes Questions”.
http:// cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html