The 4-day workweek: next-level energy policy?
When less is more, or "energy sufficiency" re-imagined
Dear folks,
In my opening newsletter of the year, I announced I would be looking at some Big Swing ideas about how we might actually achieve sustainability, in ways that benefit everyone. So far, I’ve been writing about why it’s necessary that we take bigger swings. To recap: because so far, we simply haven’t been able to combine economic growth with fewer emissions, in part because every increase in technological efficiency or logistic thrift has opened up new fields of consumption, and because it’s not so easy to coerce or seduce those with the biggest footprints into consuming less. Most of their consumption patterns are firmly and systemically entrenched.
So, then, what about changing the system?
If we’re going to swing big, might as well swing hard, so let’s start with the core of our modern world: work. The source of much of our social integration, status and self-esteem, but also the site of ill-making anxiety, exhaustion and exploitation. Work also makes our problematic consumption possible, by providing the materials, infrastructure, labour and, of course, by filling up our wallets.
Could we substantially re-engineer this engine of our economy so that working still allows us to mingle in society, build our self-esteem, but reduce stress and exploitation, all the while changing our relationship to consumption?
Well, such is the promise of the shorter workweek. ✊
It’s an idea that’s catching on (for white collar work) in these times of substantial labour upheaval. And, from all accounts, it looks like employees are happier, healthier and — interesting from a Capitalist’s point of view — more productive and more likely to stay with a company. There are some other (potential) positive spillover effects as well:
One experiment in Utah resulted in higher engagement in voluntary work.
People say they want to use the newfound time to spend in the company of friends and family (instead of passing out on the couch watching Netflix), and with the extra energy and time, they just might!
“Work to live, not live to work”
— John McDonnell, embracing fewer working hours for the UK Labour Party
Fewer working hours could help lift some of the pressure on (working) women as men have less of an excuse to not engage more in domestic labour.
It opens up space for activities that are not only good for growth and pleasure (reading, playing, exercising), but which are also low-carbon.
The climate benefits of working less
That brings us back to the reason why I’m talking about a shorter working week in The Social Life of Energy. It could have a significant climate impact too.
A UK study commissioned by the 4 Day Week campaign summarizes the evidence on the topic and did some carbon computing of its own. It found that a four-day workweek could reduce UK emissions by 20%, or the equivalent of all cars on the road.
The mechanisms behind this reduction include the following:
A four-day working week (that is, a three day weekend 🎶🎈🍻) can reduce commuting. A 32-hour workweek stretched over 5 days might allow the ability to use slower (and more sustainable) modes of transport.
Provided companies don’t compensate ‘lost’ working hours by hiring new workers, offices and some types of factories could shut down for an extra day. Research suggests that given their high energy intensity, even if employees require energy on their own elsewhere, it would still be a net gain.
Changes in household consumption. For example, the often energy-intensive (and labour exploitative) ‘convenience economy’ loses some of its appeal. Take ‘home shopping’. The inefficiencies that arise with now-now-now! next and same-day deliveries, when fewer packages can be bundled into one trip, could be avoided. (Guardian 2020, CNN business, 2019)
The aforementioned low-carbon pastimes. There is more space for time-intensive (but energy-light) activities people, creating opportunities for people to lead more ‘wholesome’ lives.
Sufficiency
A shorter working week to save the climate is an example of what science buffs and policy wonks call “sufficiency”. Steve Sorrell, Birgitta Gatersleben and Angela Druckman — all science buffs — define this term as follows:
‘Energy sufficiency’ involves reducing consumption of energy services in order to minimise the associated environmental impacts. (Sorrell et al, 2020)
It’s kind of the companion strategy to “efficiency”. Both ideas trace their roots back to the 1973 oil crisis. Whereas efficiency relates to the machines, sufficiency relates to behaviour. At the outset, energy sufficiency was called “energy conservation”. Because it came as a response to a crisis, for a long time, sufficiency measures - whether voluntary or encouraged - were presented and seen as a sacrifice.
The shorter workweek is different. It is exemplary for a renewed interest in sufficiency as “as an essential, welfare-enhancing response to a long-term climate crisis” (Sorrell et al) - as something intrinsically worth striving for.
It arises out of the realization that late capitalist societies were going nowhere as it was anyway — that the climate crisis is but one of the manifestations of a deeper civilizational shortcoming. The climate crisis has accelerated as inequality hardened and trust, health and security declined. Sufficiency has thus come to dovetail with the call for a paradigm shift. To reverse some trends of the last decades, right historic wrongs, and re-imagine the pursuit of happiness for the 21st century. In so doing, we might not only come closer to realizing a good life for all, but also combat climate change and other ecosystem destruction.
Constant vigilance
But I’m painting a lot of bright roses and crystal blue skies here. Haven’t we just learned from the rebound effect that things tend to have unintended consequences? Am I not just cherry-picking some potential positive outcomes — and some paternalistic outcomes at that (“wholesome” lives??).
OK, yes, but: Steve Sorrell and his fellow science buffs calculate that a shorter workweek is more effective at reducing emissions than relying on good intentions and ‘pro-environmental behaviours’. These intentions aren’t very widespread and tend not to drive significant impacts where they exist anyway - values are difficult to put into practice when social structures work against them. In addition, work-time reduction also looks to outperform efficiency improvements (because of said rebound effects).
That being said, they also estimate that the rebound effect still holds for the four-day working week. Explaining and understanding this will take a little while longer though, so I will come back to this next week. Not to crash the utopian party, but to argue that a shorter work-week should be part of a comprehensive, not to say holistic, package of mutually reinforcing measures.
Until then - or let me you know if you have something add or to correct in the meanwhile!
Best,
Marten
PS New here? Sign up for more of this straight to your inbox!