Ed, interesting article. I wasn't trying to suggest that WFH was a simplistic, one fits all, solution. Some jobs just can't be done at home, others prefer to WFH if they have commutes form Peterborough, Southampton, Bicester, Kettering, etc to London if they can't afford to live closer because that saves them 3, 4 or more hours a day commuting. Some people - self employed, freelance writers, some games software developers, etc - have been working at home for years so don't see what the issue is; some jobs, - foe example, sales roles, engineers, etc - have locate people at home for decades but in many instances they use this as a base from which thet visit, meet interviewees and prospects, attend too repairs, etc while using home for background work and phone calls. Then of course there's the social aspect, teams often indulge in after work drinks or games activities, and I know of one company developing software products for remote working that prefers its own staff to work in the office as they see it as beneficial for productivity and creativity. Even those working from or based at home prefer to work where there are others around such as shared offices, cafes - or pubs; that might alleviate the home energy use to some extent?, although it wasn't clear whether the study in the article had taken into account that another family member (or members) might be in the home anyway and consuming energy. As with all things, there will be variations in any new working patterns and if it happens we're looking at an accelerated change not a binary overnight switch. Similarly, Matt, I'm sure any introduction of drones will be variable and have its pros and cons ...
Michael Ixer ● 2381d