Do Something Good for the Planet: Take the Afternoon Off
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA on 02. 7.08
Photo credit: much ado about nothign
Want to do something good for the planet? Punch out a little early. Take the afternoon off. Work less. This is the argument of Juliet Schor, a sociologist at Boston College, in "Sustainable Consumption and Worktime Reduction," a paper published by MIT's Yale University'sJournal of Industrial Ecology. So, how does less work equal more sustainable consumption patterns?
Professor Schor argues that as the global economy has increased its productivity rates, its workers have just continued to make more stuff, as opposed to making the same amount of stuff and cutting back on the amount of work. Generally, more stuff made = more stuff consumed, so if we all just cut back on the amount of time we work, there'll be less stuff, and we'll collectively consume less. Makes sense, right?
Sure, but not all by itself; Schor notes that population and technological innovation have taken the most of the spotlight when it comes to sustainable development, leaving worktime reduction waiting in the wings. Population trends are widely variable around the globe, and have been changing rapidly over the past decades in North America and Europe. Technological innovation -- like the kind highlighted in Cradle to Cradle evangelized by Amory and Hunter Lovins -- is necessary, for sure, but not sufficient to pull consumption patterns back to sustainable levels.
That leaves less production -- though not less productivity, necessarily -- as the third spoke in the wheel, according to Schor. Ultimately, "inhabitants of the global North can and should opt for a new economic and social vision based on quality of life, rather than quantity of stuff, with reduced worktime and ecological sustainability at its core." We're off to email this to the boss and punch out early. ::Journal of Industrial Ecology via ::Dot Earth
There's a sci-fi novel by Brian Herbert -- Sidney's Comet -- that's about a consumption society gone mad. It makes for an interesting read, and it'll leave you wondering whether Stuff really is as important as people make it out to be.
Another good book that covers this issue:
http://www.worklessparty.org/
Hell yeah. Less work, more time with family, friends. Less stress, more time to be green :)
Yah thats all fine and dandy but we can consume the same amount or even more and have even less impact on the environment all we have to do is basic things like recycle use more efficient product and use renewable energy like solar which basically has no impact on the environment
What a cute story. Let's just delude ourselves that everyone makes soooo much money they can cut on hour out of their work day.
I think this is very interesting - not in a slacker way, but in a real way. I think people can get really burned out on work and when they leave early, that's just more time not spent in a stressful work environment.
Well, I for one can claim that regardless of the hours I work, my production or consumption doesn't change. That's because I work as a systems administrator for an ISP. And when I go home, I turn on my computer *there*. :)
The Take Back Your Time campaign (timeday.org) has been arguing for shorter work hours for years -- it makes sense on many levels. Juliet Schor has been involved with that group, I think. The idea isn't that individuals should cut out early, but that society and employers and governments recognize the benefits. Of course that's not likely to happen any time soon.
As the editor of the Journal of Industrial Ecology, I'm really pleased to see that the special issue on consumption & the environment has generated some discussion. I want clarify that the Journal is owned by Yale University (and headquartered at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies), not by MIT. MIT Press (owned by MIT) until last month was the publisher. The Journal is now published by Wiley-Blackwell.
***
Author's comments:
Thanks for the clarification, Reid -- keep up the great work!
-CD