|
April 09, 2009
|
 |
Do you think it is a good idea for companies and municipalities to modify work weeks from five to four days to save money on energy costs? Now all these workers need to go and heat or cool their own homes which seems like it would use more energy than if they had all stayed in one office building.
— Brooke
Danvers, Massachusetts
 Brooke, you make a terrific point. It sure would be swell if the motivation to create a four-day work week was to save the planet. But in most cases, the municipality or company is simply trying to save money by improving its own efficiency. The bean counters at work don't care if your energy use rises as a result of your extra day at home.
|
|
Do you have a question of your
own?
|
|
Look at it this way, though: in these tight times, every dollar your employer saves might in turn save the job of the person sitting next to you, or your own. You're also forgetting that a four-day work week means that you're reducing the fuel consumption of your commute by 20 percent, which is pretty sizable. Americans drive an average of 32 miles to and from work every day. So let's do the math: over 48 weeks (I'm graciously giving you four weeks vacation) you'll be driving 1,536 fewer miles. Now let's say that all 100 million American car commuters reduced their drive by 20 percent. That would drop commuting fuel consumption by 6.2 billion gallons a year. That's a lot of dead dinosaurs, and carbon dioxide. Not such a bad idea now, is it?
Eco Adventurer
Greg Melville is the author of Greasy Rider, a new book in which he drives across the country in a fry-oil-powered car investigating the future of green technology. A journalist who has written for Outside, The New York Times, and Popular Mechanics, Melville blogs about all things eco at greasyriderbook.blogspot.com. He lives with his wife, kids, and dog in Asheville North Carolina.
|
