Online Shopping May Actually Increase Pollution 410
destinyland writes "British researchers have reached a startling conclusion. Unless online shoppers order 25 items at a time, they're polluting more than if they shopped at their local mall. An environmental benefit only occurs 'if online shopping replaces 3.5 traditional shopping trips, or if 25 orders are delivered at the same time, or, if the distance traveled to where the purchase is made is more than 50 kilometers. Shopping online does not offer net environmental benefits unless these criteria are met.' The study was conducted by Newcastle University's Institution of Engineering and Technology, which blames the environmental impact of transportation, warning that 'policy makers must do their homework to ensure that rebound effects do not negate the positive benefits of their policy initiatives.' But one technology site notes the study was conducted in Britain, which could have an impact on its conclusions."
Merry olde England, a factor? Certes, ye jest! (Score:4, Informative)
Last time I was in London (some years now), I was appalled at the traffic, and the disorganized nature of the city's layout. Can't say I've experienced anything like that in the US, and I've driven in a lot of US cities. Los Angeles and every Florida city I've ever been in come to mind as the most annoying, because they're so spread-out; it takes more driving to get anywhere, and that might be comparable on some level. Where I live (Montana), we're definitely in the "over 50km" class; heck, it's 140 miles to the nearest city, and that's not even in my state. If I want to shop in a city without sales tax (and oh yes, you can bet I do) then staying in-state, it's a 300 mile drive, or 482km. As you might imagine, we're definitely fans of Internet shopping!
Re:Merry olde England, a factor? Certes, ye jest! (Score:5, Informative)
Lay out a 'modern' city in grid-form, and you get... Ugh... Milton Keynes.
Re:Kind of short on details (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Merry olde England, a factor? Certes, ye jest! (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I get why... I'm just saying, gee, that might affect an analysis of how efficient home delivery vs. local shopping might be.
Not always. Look at Manhattan... nominally laid out in a grid, yet down in Greenwich Village, there's at least one street that actually crosses itself, I don't remember which one anymore. I think city designers might do a lot of drugs. Or simply delight in confusing people.
Re:Begs the question. (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, really. I shop at Newegg to get cheaper computer parts (before I knew about it, I was going to places like Walmart, and I've seen 120GB external hard drives for over $100 there!).
Re:Kind of short on details (Score:2, Informative)
I agree.
Having worked for an air freight company, I can tell you the trucks and planes go the same place every day regardless of how much cargo there is. In fact, if there are "2 or 3 day air packages, or even ground", and there is reserve capacity on the airplane -- it flies. It does not cost extra to load more cargo on a DC-10 that you already paid for and fueled. It does cost extra to run a truck with a freight containers to the same location.
The end game is to send every vehicle full to capacity, and limit the number of vehicles. Freight companies do this all the time, not to limit environmental impact, but to save fuel costs. Every freight carrier runs this equation daily....and even hourly.
As for delivery, the truck is there every day anyway. It doesn't cost very much to stop. It does cost money to fire up your gas powered vehicle and drive to the mall, which is where the trucks go anyway.
Two trips or one.....take your pick....
Re:Merry olde England, a factor? Certes, ye jest! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Merry olde England, a factor? Certes, ye jest! (Score:5, Informative)
Most old cities of Europe were laid for city walls. City walls being expensive and hard to expand, the cities were laid out in circular pattern with central market and roads rexpanding radially, street circles connecting them and more radial streets added as the roads were getting further apart. If more towns were near to each other, where they met while expanding the layout was very chaotic, two unequally growing radial patterns meeting. Also, squeezing as much as possible within city walls, with chaotic land purchase/inheritance patterns often led to very chaotic city center layout... see Prague.
Re:*thwack!* (Score:5, Informative)
If efficiency is your goal, you should do it the Foxconn way.
Basically you live, work and eat in the factory-city (some even die there ;) ). The factory-city even has its own chicken farm producing eggs for the factory cafeterias: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_38/b4195058423479_page_3.htm [businessweek.com]
No need to waste time, space and resources to have the workers go shopping for different stuff, cook their own meals and storing surpluses in their own refrigerators and stores.
Instead of:
farms -> hypermarkets -> shopping commutes -> fridge/store -> kitchen -> consumption point
You have:
farms -> cafeteria fridge/store -> cafeteria kitchen -> consumption point
When done right, this way will be less polluting than the "western suburban method". It may not make for a better lifestyle, but if efficiency is the goal, this is what you do.
FWIW, if you live in a city (normal not factory) that's suitable for pedestrians it might actually not be so inefficient to eat out assuming you go to restaurants that are similar in efficiencies as hypermarkets.
farms -> restaurant fridge/store -> restaurant kitchen -> consumption point.