Giving Compass' Take:

• It is reported that every hour you work contributes to the climate crisis. Fast Company suggests one way of fighting climate change and emissions is to create a shorter workweek. 

• How can policymakers advocate more for practical ways of helping our climate such as this? What are some challenges in creating a shorter workweek?

• Here's why a 4 day workweek is also good for business. 

The case for a shorter workweek usually centers on worker well-being. If you’re working four days a week or six hours a day, you’ll probably be happier, and companies benefit if happy workers are more likely to stick with a job. But there’s also an argument that working fewer hours could help fight climate change.

The reasoning is simple: If companies produced less each week, and ran their offices for fewer hours, they would also emit less CO2. Other studies have looked at different ways that reducing work benefits emissions, starting with the fact that commuters can spend less time in cars. With more free time, workers may also end up consuming less–they might have time to walk or bike to run an errand instead of driving, for example, or might be more likely to spend time socializing rather than shopping.

A new paper calculates how much work needs to shrink in some economies to get on track to stay under 2 degrees of global warming, the upper limit to avoid some of the worst impacts of climate change. In the U.K., it would mean moving to a nine-hour workweek. In Sweden, the week would be around 12 hours. The U.S. was not part of the paper, but might have to cut hours even more.

Read the full article about a shorter workweek by Adele Peters at Fast Company.