A recent study by Carnegie Mellon University finds that shopping online instead of going to a retail store cuts carbon emissions. The research performed by the university’s Green Design Institute, found that shopping online via Buy.com uses 35 percent less energy and carbon dioxide emissions than making a traditional trip to the mall for the same item. Shoppers consume the most energy and create the greatest amount of CO2 emissions traveling to and from their destination, while packaging and last mile delivery to a customer’s home, account for much of the emissions in the online transaction model. Brick and mortar stores typically have items shipped from distributors to regional warehouses and then to individual stores; while a site like Buy.com usually ships directly from distribution partners to the customer, eliminating a step.
The study used the purchase of a flash drive for the comparison; no word on the the energy efficiency of buying an ill-fitting pair of jeans that need to be returned…
via: campustechnology.com
RSS
This is great info and we’re pleased to see an empirical representation of what we’ve long believed — and what we’ve based our eco-gift, online boutique on. Apparel, or anything sized, is definitely in a different class — the ill-fitting possibility multiplying the return probability. Gifts purchased at the mall, however, if for a distant recipient, require an additional drive to UPS or USPS after wrapping — additional carbon expenditures compared to online, direct delivery.
In our eco-gift, online boutique, we’ve tried to minimize the ill-fitting problem by not offering sized products (except for babies).
And we’ve minimized the packaging problem by making our custom gift boxes in the US relatively near our warehouse (as local as we can get) and by supporting box and paper makers who used recycled and other green practices. We use 100% American grown and manufactured organic cotton ribbon. Our gift boxes are unbranded to encourage reuse. I’d love to know how these steps further reduce the carbon emissions of an online gift.
That’s interesting. I always wonder about this because I walk or take mass transit to do 90% of our shopping – but I can’t always find “green” products available locally. I’ve often debated buying the less green product that I can get on foot versus the more green product that I can order online.
I realize this study doesn’t really address my question, but it does make me feel better about having my bamboo towels UPS’d to my door.
Though this study is good at showing the ecological effects of what you called “the traditional trip” to a store as opposed to shopping online, my concern is that one would automatically consider shopping online the more socially responsible option. In an ideal situation though, one would leave the house, turn off their lights,appliances and electronics (i.e. computer), go by foot or bicycle to the local shops and in result actually conserve energy, invest in relationships with real people, and contribute to the local economy.
Buying local definitely has its merits and should always be a consideration when shopping. I think the study was focused primarily on emissions and not the broader spectrum of consumer concerns.
“Buying locally” is a different concept than buying a local product. One focuses on where the final transaction/relationship exists and the other focuses on where the product was produced.
I agree that “buying locally” builds relationships and may support neighborhood stores and people, etc., BUT when you “buy locally” you may well be not be “buying local”. That product may have traveled far.
The article above notes that “Brick and mortar stores typically have items shipped from distributors to regional warehouses and then to individual stores.”
So, even if you walk or bike to shop, your product may have been shipped from China or Chile.
And most people, under present conditions, cannot walk or bike to shop.
I cannot find a store in Hillside, Illinois that sells the smallsteps single roll paper towel.