Posted to RiverWired by John Platt
Shopping locally uses less energy, right?
Not necessarily, according to a study by Carnegie Mellon's Green Design Institute. The study looked specifically at Buy.com's e-commerce model, and found that shopping online through that site "reduces environmental impact with 35 percent less energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions than what is produced in the traditional retail shopping model."
Obviously, this isn't going to work for every online retailer, or compare to every brick-and-morter store in your area, but still, these results are surprising.
The study found that "approximately 65 percent of total emissions generated by the traditional retail model stemmed from customer transport to and from retail stores." This could change if you drive a hybrid or ride a bike (or god forbid, walk to the store!), but it does illustrate the effect of short drives on our environment.
RiverWired.com is a network of sites and blogs with eco-friendly news, videos and community to help people live just a little greener – and have a lot more fun. It is a Premier Partner of SustainLane.
Elli A. says:
I would not go as far as surprising. I think you have here two elements: Transportation cost and retail cost. In term of transportation, I would imagine that retail has slight advantage. This research busted that myth as well (customer transportation). Then you have the retail cost. Online retailers are very efficient. Giant warehouses consume way less energy than shiny retail stores with large internal spaces. They also employ less people, use centralized large scale systems, etc. Buy.com does not even have a warehouse and ships directly from the manufacturer? Even better!
I think this is an example of the typical stereotypical thinking of the green movement. Ideology and not reality. "Local is good", "Nuclear is bad", "Natural is healthier", "Free Range is better for the environment" we can go on and on. People imagine their ideal world as something that is better for everything. When the world has so many people, ecological solutions are the ones driven by efficiency and science, not ideology.
I have been buying stuff online since the early days of the internet, my ebay profile is long and winded. People always told me "it is not green", but I learned to take most of the "green" claims with a grain of salt. I just could not see why it is not green, certainly not as a blanket statement. Now I have a proof :)
Great article RiverWired! We need more articles like this so people get the idea that living like grandpa and grandma is nice ideal, but not a solution.
Shalini B. says:
I don't think Buy Local movement is referring to buying from big corporations because that is NOT local. Buying lettuce in Amherst MA from Whole Foods which got it from California is not the same as buying from a farm in the Amherst Area. I am surprised that Carnegie Mellon and Sustain Lane are mixing up what Buy Local really means.
Not to mention other benefits of buying local like supporting the local economy
Beth S. says:
The comparison here is between shopping locally or shopping on line. I don't see where buying lettuce enters into this particular equation at all...
Shalini B. says:
Saying that the study is shopping local versus online is misleading because Buying Local is a different meaning all together. Read this for more info: http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/eatlocal/#what
Having done a lot of research as a marketing PhD I understand what their study is doing. Except they way it is being publicized is that buying online is better than buying local and thats not what the study is about. It is checking online sale versus store sale and it is not buying local versus buying online. I hope you understand the context in which I used lettuce and why it was used...