A new study’s got eco-bloggers embracing Amazon instead of local mom & pop shops.
Carnegie Mellon University’s Green Design Institute‘s recent study had a sentence that read: “e-commerce had about 30% lower energy consumption and CO2 emissions compared to traditional retail” — which got Traveling the Green Way to announce that Online Shopping More Eco-Friendly. Connie Wu at Your Daily Thread took that title at face value, citing that post to declare that online shopping is more eco-friendly than shopping at a traditional retail store — then to recommend a whole bunch of e-tailers.
Trouble is, neither Traveling the Green Way nor Connie seem to have read the study in any detail. The Green Design Institute’s study itself, in fact, makes no such grand, sweeping pronouncement about how e-tailing eco-triumphs over local retail shopping.
First of all, GDI’s study title — “Life Cycle Comparison of Traditional Retail and E-commerce Logistics for Electronic Products: A Case Study of buy.com” — shows the study’s much more limited than either of those bloggers make it out to be. The words “Case Study of buy.com” and “for Electronic Products” make it clear that the results of the study can’t be applied to all e-commerce — despite the fact that Traveling the Green Way has no problem extrapolating it to cover travel equipment, and Connie eco-fashions.
And in fact, the study itself’s full of disclaimers. “There was significant uncertainty and variability in many of the numbers used in the analysis,” acknowledges the study near the beginning, then repeats the disclaimer that “substantial uncertainty exists in many of the parameters of the model and significant variability exists” near the end.
Why so many disclaimers? It seems the biggest wildcard in the carbon footprint of shopping is how people get to retail stores: “Customer transport in the retail system is the most important parameter to the overall results, being similar in scale to the overall emissions related to the e-commerce system.”
The study had to use the best average shopping trip it could come up with — which ended up being a 7.5 mile roundtrip in a car that gets 22.5 mpg to pick up just a couple items. That’s certainly a lot farther than I’m willing to drive to pick up a flash drive (that’s the shopping product used for the study) — especially in L.A. traffic!
The study also used ground shipping for its e-commerce calculations. Had the study used air shipping, the results would’ve been quite different: “there is a higher probability (around 50%) of the retail system having less CO2 emissions,” according to the study.
Considering all that, “Online Shopping More Eco-Friendly” is definitely NOT the conclusion I derive from this study.
Instead, the lessons I derive from the study are these: When shopping locally, try to walk, bike, or take public transportation — or if you must drive, carpool, combine trips as much as possible and don’t drive too far. When shopping online, get ground shipping.
Sandy Bauers, a blogger for The Philadelphia Inquirer’s GreenSpace who clearly DID read the study before writing about it, comes to the same conclusion: “So [shopping e-tail] isn’t an ironclad dictum. I view it more as information to factor in, measuring my circumstances against their statistical average.” And Umbra at Grist made the same recommendations about 2 years ago.
I do shop online for some things, but not for items that are available in biking distance. There are many many reasons for shopping locally whenever possible, from promoting walkable, unique neighborhoods to supporting local economies to making friends with your neighbors to increasing community engagement and decreasing social isolation.
Don’t let anyone tell you you’re not green because you too seek those things in your town.
Photo by acordova
Hi green LA girl!
I’m essentially reposting my response to your comment on YourDailyThread.com. I think you make an important and interesting point. While we mention that the positive environmental impact of e-shopping is due to not driving, we didn’t explore the benefits of biking or walking (when possible) instead. And I agree with you that online shopping is not an “ironclad” solution to the negative environmental impacts of shopping in any way, shape, or form – but in certain circumstances, it makes sense to purchase online when you live in a sprawling city like Los Angeles and you have to drive 10 miles into a different neighborhood to purchase that perfect gift, a unique clothing item, or specialty food.
Have you looked into the energy and resources needed to power a brick-and-mortar store and whether or not there are any benefits to moving all of the operations online? I believe there are important implications there in one online website being able to serve, theoretically, people all over the world, versus one retail store that consumers would have to travel to from all over the world.
That being said, I can’t agree more that shopping locally whenever possible is an important part of supporting your local economy. We’re not all blessed to have the products we want within arm’s reach, maybe because we live in certain areas because of where we work, financial situations, or other reasons. However, e-commerce gives us the option to access these things more easily and in some instances, in a more environmentally positive way.
I appreciate your input and I like that you’ve created this dialogue on the environmental factors involved in e-commerce vs. brick-and-mortar retail shopping. We continue to redefine what exactly is best for our environment – whether it’s hydrogen vs. electric, handwashing dishes vs. dishwasher, and so on. As with other issues, there are many facets to explore and factors to juggle, and I hope you continue to do what you do and facilitate “greener” practices that help make a difference.
Thanks,
Connie
Comment by Connie Wu — May 14, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
Hey Connie — I think you missed my point — which is that to me, the study points to a need for more walkable, bikable ‘hoods, not for more online shopping. No one’s advocating having one retail store that everyone has to travel to from all over the world….
My other point’s that it’s helpful to read studies before citing them, if for no other reason than to avoid blowing the findings out of proportion and using them inappropriately. The idea that online shopping isn’t an ironclad solution isn’t even my own — It’s in the study itself….
You ask: “Have you looked into the energy and resources needed to power a brick-and-mortar store and whether or not there are any benefits to moving all of the operations online?” The answer to that is actually in the study! The answer is that there can be benefits — but only if almost no one’s opting for overnight shipping and most are driving 7.5 mile roundtrip in a car that gets 22.5 mpg to pick up just a couple items. Seriously — Read the study. I think you’d find it interesting –
Comment by Siel — May 14, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Great post, Siel. It’s always a good idea to give source material a good going over before parroting the conclusions of others. For people choosing online shopping, be sure to look for minimal packaging options like Amazon’s frustration free packaging. They have some products available without those plastic clam shells.
Martin’s last blog post..Can Hemp Replace Some Plastics?
Comment by Martin — May 15, 2009 @ 5:57 am
I actually saw a lot of photos of the frustration free packaging when I was looking for images for this post — It seems like people are quite happy about it! At least enough that many of them are posting photos of how much they like the new packaging on flickr….
Comment by Siel — May 15, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
First of all, the most efficient way to shop is to move to Europe.
Also, this may sound cynical but I think lots of people who shop online tend to be the more progressive type and as such want to feel like they’re helping the environment to boot.
Basing a study off consumer electronics is so skewed that it’s literally worthless. Like books, consumer electronics are small, light and are easy to value and comparison shop ($/features).
Look at apparel. Go to a store, try on the item to see if it fits and if it looks good on you, then buy it. The chance of return is relatively low. Online purchase may hardly fit and may have imperfections which would justify a return. I heard a few years ago that some of the most successful catalog retailers have returns of about 30%. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg…
Comment by John — May 16, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
John — But think of how much CO2 we’d all burn moving to Europe! :P
You make a good point about the differences between shopping for clothes — which I pretty much never do online — vs. electronics. That said, I also do wonder if our electronics-buying habit has been unduly influenced by the fact that they’re all sold in big box stores, where the people working there don’t really know enough about the products to give you reliable, good recommendations based on your needs…. I feel like I’d be much more likely to buy electronics at a nearby store if I could trust that there’d be someone knowledgeable there who’s also willing to take the time to listen to what I need and locate it for me –
The Apple stores in the LA area tend to be v. well-trafficked, and I wonder if this is partly because the employees know the product line well.
Comment by Siel — May 18, 2009 @ 2:22 pm