What if, instead of telling people what not to do -- don't drive SUVs, don't live in big homes, don't buy too much stuff -- environmentalists pushed to empower people to choose to work fewer hours, enjoy more time with family or friends and -- maybe best of all, in these times -- help create jobs?
This appealing vision comes from Juliet Schor, an author and social critic whose best-selling books about work, consumption, culture and the environment include The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure (1992) and The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don't Need (1998). In her latest, originally called Plenitude but re-branded for the paperback edition as True Wealth: How and Why Millions of Americans Are Creating a Time-Rich, Ecologically Light, Small-Scale, High-Satisfaction Economy, Schor offers a "strategy for living that gives people more time, more creativity, and more social connection, while also lowering ecological footprints and avoiding consumer debt."
Her core message: We can work fewer hours, buy fewer things, enjoy life more, help save the earth and even drive down today's stubbornly high unemployment rate.
I heard Schor speak last week at the Garrison Institute, a renovated monastery on the Hudson River an hour north of Manhattan, during a conference called Climate, Mind and Behavior that brought environmentalists together with academics -- psychologists, sociologists, divinity school and law school profs -- to talk about how to talk about climate in ways that better connect with more people.
Schor began her talk by explaining how climate change differs from other environmental problems. Typically, pollution gets cleaned up as societies grow wealthy and decide to spend money on catalytic converters and pollution-prevention equipment. Affluence takes care of effluents, you might say.
Climate change doesn't work that way. Economic growth, which is good, tends to increase carbon dioxide emissions, which are not. Per capita CO2 emissions are much higher in the well-to-do US and Europe than they are in Asia or Africa. "The more you grow, the more you emit," Schor says. While efficiency and decarbonization (think iTunes instead of CDs) can slow emissions growth, they are more than offset by rising consumption. This puts supporters of climate controls in the uncomfortable position of asking for sacrifice. "It's very hard to talk about the idea of reducing people's consumption and slowing down the growth of the economy," Schor says. That's one reason activists who want to curb climate change are losing the political argument.

Browse
Engage
Research










"To reach sustainability,
"To reach sustainability, take the shrinking work week even further, making it the sole goal of enhanced efficiency" from Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, See
"A Society Where Everyone Works, But Not Very Much"
http://ssppjournal.blogspot.com/2012/02/society-where-everyone-works-but...
I question the assumption
I question the assumption passed off early on in your essay here: namely that "economic growth is good". It is not always the case that GDP (the common measure of economic growth and progress) truly represents things of value. The classic example is oil spills, and cleanup costs associated therewith-- which are considered positive additions to GDP.
We know for a fact that our planet consists of finite resources, most of which are utilized very inefficiently from an energy and materials standpoint. But the truth remains that we have one earth's worth of stuff to work with, and that is all the yarn we have to knit the sweaters for every human being who needs one.
Improvements in efficiency represent real opportunities for continued increases in quality of life, with little or no additional cost for materials/resources. Some would call these measures the continued greening of the economy.
There is no such thing as a green job or a non-green job. Everyone's job should have something to do with sustainability or a green future, or else it is inherently not in the best interest of our collective survival.
We don't need to have fewer choices by taking such a path forward, either. Only to vet each of the choices or options according to a set of criteria of ever-increasing sustainability and efficiency.
Your clothing example is interesting to me. Since the 90s I have been buying most of my clothing at thrift stores, or through eBay resale. I have never had more options, nor more clothes in my closet. There is a lot of efficiency to wring out of the system still, if gently used clothing is selling for $1.50 a pound.
The notion of "time banks" is another concept worth exploring in this context. People's time is exchanged in a barterlike system that adds to their quality of life without increasing the above-cited measured economic growth GDP.
I do not dispute the notion that we could decouple paid time working from actual measures of progress in our individual and collective quality of life.
Thanks Mark, for bringing
Thanks Mark, for bringing this book, and these ideas, to our attention. I look forward to reading this and think that we will have to take care as many will argue that France's move to a 35 hour work week (or is it 32?) has been a disaster.
But to raise consciousness of the (forgotten perhaps) concept that more productivity can EITHER mean more stuff produced with less resources or less time/resources spent producing said stuff, is important and clearly will vary according to the "stuff" and the need for it.
Mark, excellent points on
Mark, excellent points on green jobs, consumption and why the climate change argument is being lost. (On this point, worth reading Naomi Klein's Capitalism vs. the Climate: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate) However, I don't really see how Schor's "timesizing" proposal can scale up to make a difference. Anyone willing to work fewer hours (for a smaller paycheck, of course) will also be willing to cut consumption in the first place with or without changes in work hours.