In a groundbreaking study, the University of Massachusetts reveals that reducing working hours can contribute significantly to environmental conservation. Trimming just 10% of our work time could lead to a remarkable 14.6% reduction in our ecological footprint, primarily due to decreased travel and daily expenses.
This idea sparks a debate between two contrasting theories:
- Technological Advancements and Unchanged Wages: Some believe that despite reduced working hours, technological and energy improvements could sustain economic growth. Changes in daily habits, like preparing meals at home, could further reduce pollution.
- Degrowth Theory: Advocates of degrowth argue that a substantial reduction in ecological footprint by 2050 is achievable only by decreasing wages. This theory contends that with less disposable income, material consumption would decrease, subsequently reducing pollution and resource use. Essentially, earning a salary equivalent to the actual days worked, such as a four-day workweek, aligns with this approach.
Personally, I lean towards the degrowth theory. The current trajectory seems unsustainable, risking a rapid depletion of resources and an uncontrollable decline in population and industrial productivity. Despite its radical nature, an OECD report indicates a 50% increase in consumption over the past 30 years, correlating with a rise in environmental footprint. Degrowth proposes a gradual reduction in consumption, starting with a cut in working hours.
Economist Serge Latouche, a key proponent of degrowth, clarifies that it’s not about weakness or suffering but a transformation from consumption to use. This involves buying based on necessity, repairing items, and recycling at the end of their lifecycle—a shift towards a materially responsible society.
Degrowth advocates a celebration of slowness, drawing on tradition, and a shift from quantity to quality. It emphasizes that progress requires conservation and challenges the notion of new equating to better and old to outdated.
So, why work less and earn less? The reduction in working hours must be accompanied by a decrease in wages to avoid an increase in the ecological footprint due to leisure activities. However, this shift would allow more time for personal growth, extending beyond mere leisure.
In the face of our crucial choice between embracing sobriety across all levels or hurtling towards resource depletion and a global system collapse, it’s time to reflect on a different future. Especially in these challenging times marked by a threat of an increase of the planet’s temperature by over 1.5 degrees, we should choose a more sustainable and committed behavior as the path forward. Everyone should be ready to make some efforts to reduce their own consumption.
What are your thoughts? Would you consider working less, earning less, and consuming less, while embracing a more purposeful and conscientious way of life?
You can find more on the environment on my blog and also on the Boomer Eco Crusade blog, a blogger who is really engaged in making small changes towards a positive impact.
Crisbie Coach 