by John de Graaf
About six years ago, I addressed the annual state conference of the Associated Recyclers of Wisconsin, an organization of private and public waste managers. The topic of my talk, “Haste Makes Waste,” was focused on overwork and overconsumption. I told the assembled solid-waste handlers, “if you want to reduce landfills, reduce working hours.”
I argued that the long hours we in the United States work -- some 300 more per year than western Europeans -- mean we are more likely to rely on “convenience” and disposable items, such as heavily-packaged fast foods and single-use goods. I told my audience that many people had told me they were “too pressed for time even to recycle.” Moreover, our long work hours allow us to produce and buy more and more “stuff,” resulting in a greater pressure on resources and an inevitably stream of more waste.
A few members of the audience told me they agreed with my remarks, but I’m sure most thought I was pretty far out. Since then, the arguments for cutting working time to save the planet have only gotten more compelling.
I’m all for the new greener technologies and alternative energy strategies, but by themselves, they won’t stop climate change or create a sustainable society. To do so, we need to think outside the box and apply whole systems thinking to the ecological and social problems we face. To create a sustainable society, we’ll need to work less to have more of what we truly need: time.
EUROPE -- VIVE LA DIFFERENCE!
With their long vacations and far shorter working hours, Europeans are consistently far healthier than Americans -- after the age of 50, they are only about half as likely to suffer from chronic illnesses such as heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and even cancer. They are only half a likely to suffer from depression and anxiety, and they spend only half as much on average as we do for health care. Studies show their better health results from more exercise, more socializing with friends and families, less stress and more sleep; all of these are made possible by having more time.
Europeans are not only more personally sustainable (they live longer!), but they are also more environmentally sustainable. On average, they produce only about half the amount of air pollution, use half as much energy and produce half as much solid waste and greenhouse carbon per capita as we do; all while enjoying a similar material lifestyle. Their average “ecological footprint,” at 12 acres per person, is also about half that of ours. They are far from perfect (since their lifestyles still would require two and half planets if reproduced everywhere), but their ecological impact is far less than ours.
A December, 2006, study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research provided strong evidence that if Americans were to reduce their working hours to European levels, they could drastically cut their energy use by as much as 26 percent, nearly meeting key Kyoto climate change targets. This is a massive reduction. Combine this with advances in clean energy technology, and we could reduce our impacts even further.
The study argued that by reducing work hours, Americans would reduce the energy used for transportation (with more time, Europeans are far more likely to walk, bike or take public transit), and even more importantly, that they would reduce the energy necessary for the production of goods – as Americans trade time for money, they would consume and produce less.
THE FOUR-DAY WEEK
In response to escalating fuel costs, many companies are now considering going to a four-day work week. They believe this will save large sums on commuter fuel expenses and reduce traffic congestion. The problem is that they mean four 10-hour days. But for many American families in which both parents work, such long days will intensify daily stress.
Families will find less time to take care of tasks on the home front, or to exercise, eat properly and so forth; and families with young children will be hit particularly hard -- imagine leaving children in daycare 10 or more hours a day. The health impacts could be severe. There will be increased pressure to reduce commute times (since the work day is already so long), encouraging more high-energy (automobile) commuting to get to and from work faster so as to have more time at home. Moreover, businesses will see a clear decline in hourly productivity, since fatigue sets in rapidly after eight hours on the job.
The real solution to this problem is to go to a four-day workweek of eight-hour days. Total production would be reduced slightly, but this will make us more sustainable. The commuting/energy benefits of the four-day week would be kept, without the negatives. We could expect significant reductions in energy and resource use, and in health problems and health care costs. Talk about a win-win situation! The Center for a New American Dream, a Maryland non-profit, has had such a 32-hour work week for 10 years, with excellent results for productivity, creativity and worker morale.
VACATION TIME AS A FIRST STEP TOWARD SHORTER HOURS
In 2002, together with a group of colleagues, I started TAKE BACK YOUR TIME to promote the idea of trading gains in productivity for time instead of stuff. In our view, such a strategy would leave Americans healthier, happier, and more connected to each other, their communities and the environment. Increasingly, the evidence is mounting that we were on the right track. We are now working on campaign to pass a law in the United States guaranteeing paid vacation for workers (the United States is currently the only industrial nation without such a law). But the campaign is about more than passing the law; it’s about generating a new national dialogue about the importance of time.
