Study: Global Warming Can Be Slowed By Working Less

A new analysis suggests that a more ‘European’ schedule would reduce the effects of climate change

By Jason Koebler

Want to reduce the effects of global warming? Stop working so hard. Working fewer hours might help slow global warming, according to a new study released Monday by the Center for Economic Policy and Research.

A worldwide switch to a “more European” work schedule, which includes working fewer hours and more vacation time, could prevent as much as half of the expected global temperature rise by 2100, according to the analysis, which used a 2012 study that found shorter work hours could be associated with lower carbon emissions.

The Center for Economic Policy and Research is a liberal think tank based in Washington.

Read the rest at US News & World Report.

  • Peter A.

    If the relationship, between hours worked and CO2 emissions, is ‘not clearly understood’, then how can they say that ‘it is understandable that lowering levels of consumption, holding everything else constant, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions’? What am I missing here? Where can the original research be found? Is there a link in the article to it somewhere?

    Anyway, I’d like to believe that this is true because, to be quite frank, I’m really tired of hearing how hard work is somehow virtuous (the ‘Protestant work ethic’ – horrible nonsense), and I need a good reason to bludge and not do anything. If one one accepts their premises and follows their reasoning to its logical conclusion(s), since a reduction of hours spent slaving away translates to a halving of ‘the expected global temperature rise by 2100’, wouldn’t not doing any work at all reduce this expected rise to zero? Why just go half-way?

  • NEILIO

    This is ridiculous. It is based on the premise that CO2 emissions are the cause of global temperature rise. Which is demonstrably false when you look at the flat temperatures for the last decade and a half, and the increasing emissions of CO2 over the same period. There is no correlation.
    I predicted long ago that someday they were going to mandate some kind of bag over our heads to capture CO2 from our exhalations. We’re not there yet but I see this as a step in that direction. It’s loony.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Articles as Trolls. Works like a charm.

  • Dan

    I see it a bit differently. The power and prestige of the United States has been under assault from several corners of the world for a long time. They are using propaganda through mass media to try to convince us to dismantle ourselves. We shouldn’t be so rich, powerful and successful. We should be more like Europe! Europe is better!

    Part of what’s made the United States so successful is our work ethic, so that’s under attack, too. It’s bad to work hard and get ahead, because working hard (just like everything else we do) is “destroying the planet.”

    Everything socialists/communists don’t like causes global warming and every calamity that befalls us is the result of global warming. Hurricane destroys a coastal city? It’s because those damn Americans work too hard. Now I feel guilty for trying to provide for my family – I better go take a nap.

    • Heath Clarke

      Spot on Dan. And the left would have us apologizing for our success.

      • Peter A.

        Yes, you should apologise, for you have a lot to apologise for!

    • Peter A.

      Where is the evidence that ‘the United States has been under assault from several corners of the world for a long time’? If anything, it is the rest of the world that has been under assault from the United States. Examples include:
      1. invasion of Granada, 1983
      2. funding of ‘contras’ in Nicaragua, 1980’s
      3. overthrow of (democratically-elected) Iranian leader Mossadegh in early 50’s
      4. the establishment of military bases all over the world from Diego Garcia, to Okinawa, from Australia to Spain.
      5. overthrow of Libyan government under the pretext of providing air cover for ‘freedom fighters’
      6. support for Taliban, al Qaeda and bin Laden during the 1980’s when the Soviets were there. (How dare other nations invade sovereign states – that’s a job for the U.S.!)
      7. support for Pinochet in Chile
      8. support of apartheid Sth Africa
      9. support for Marcos in Philippines
      10. Vietnam War
      11. bombing of Cambodia
      12 genocide against the Iraqi’s during the 1990’s, largely caused by an economic blockade that failed to destabilise S. Hussein
      13 the second invasion of Iraq under the pretext of going after WMD’s that were not there, and which we knew beforehand were not there
      14 continued support for the warmongering Netanyahu regime in Israel
      15 drone attacks
      16 extra-judicial killings
      17 torture
      18 Guantanamo bay concentration camp

      Would you like more examples?

      • NEILIO

        Peter, All of those things are debatable as to what the role of the US was in any of them for good or ill. But there are at least two items that I have to ask what the heck you are talking about. First one is number 12. Genocide? Really? Genocide? I know you are an intelligent person, but I can only assume that you don’t understand the meaning of the word genocide. In case you don’t know it, this is the definition of that word from the dictionary.
        Genocide: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
        Now, was the economic blockade a bad thing for the Iraqi people? Yes, it probably was. But, did it cause a systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group? I would have to say no, it did not. At best, the use of the word genocide was a poor choice of word. At worst, it is propaganda directed to make the US sound like it’s an evil beast.
        If anyone was commiting genocide it was Saddam Hussain against the Kurds.

        The second one is number 18. Concentration camp? The dictionary gives two definitions to that term:
        1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
        2. A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.
        So, some of the first definition is certainly true. There may even be some political prisoners there, I don’t know. But, the operative term in both definitions is “harsh conditions”.
        It is debatable that the camp should be, or not be, but it is not a place where prisoners are kept in harsh conditions. I’m sorry but calling it a concentration camp is over the top. That description is pure propaganda to equate it with Nazi’s and the holocaust, to make the US sound like an evil beast.

        The rest I’m not going to get into. I’ll just say that 90% of it is bullcrap, with a few valid points interspersed. There isn’t a country on Earth that doesn’t have some skeletons in its closets, made mistakes, or has done some despicable things, or stupid things that in hindsight were the wrong choices. Austrailia couldn’t wear white to her wedding, could she?

        • Rob N. Hood

          He told you huh Peter, Mr. Smartypants… USA USA USA!

          • Peter A.

            This is a joke – right? It’s often hard to tell with text. All ‘Neilio’ has to do is ‘google’ these items if he wants to.

        • Peter A.

          ‘Peter, All of those things are debatable as to what the role of the US was in any of them for good or ill.’

          Debatable?! God, you people simply do not have a clue. Whilst my use of the term ‘genocide’ may have not been entirely appropriate for the example given, the role of the U.S. government in all of the items listed here is indisputable. Are you seriously going to believe that, for example number 2, the Reagen Administration did NOT illegally (i.e. in contravention of orders from the U.S. Congress, and covertly) fund the right-wing guerrillas during their war against the Nicaraguan government? Ever hear of the ‘Iran-Contra Scandal’? Oliver North? Do you even remember the 1980’s?!?! Were you even alive back then?

          Well, I do recall many of the events listed. The 1983 invasion of Granada is a FACT. I did not make up any of the events on this list. Do they still teach history over there? Are you people simply in denial?

          ‘There isn’t a country on Earth that doesn’t have some skeletons in its closets, made mistakes, or has done some despicable things, or stupid things that in hindsight were the wrong choices. Austrailia couldn’t wear white to her wedding, could she?’

          Yes, every nation has a tarnished history, which is one of the reasons it would be a great idea to get rid of petty little nation-states, and replace them with a single world government. Australia – I could not care less about that little tribe, a nation that has consistently had governments that have never had the backbone to stand up to the American Empire and say ‘no’.

        • Peter A.

          From Wikipedia:

          ‘Mosaddegh was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953, organised and carried out by the CIA at the request of the British MI6 which chose Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Mosaddegh.[6]

          While the coup is commonly referred to as Operation Ajax[7] after its CIA cryptonym, in Iran it is referred to as the 28 Mordad 1332 coup, after its date on the Iranian calendar.[8] Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years, then put under house arrest until his death.’

          It took me less than 2 minutes to do this, it’s so easy to find information on the crimes of, in this example, the CIA and MI6. That’s the ‘Central Intelligence Agency’ of the United States government, and MI6 is the British equivalent (just in case you did not know, and couldn’t be bothered looking into it).

          As for your definition of ‘concentration camp’, well it must be said that the term ‘harsh conditions’ need not necessarily mean that the prisoners are living out in the open, exposed to the elements of nature. A ‘harsh condition’ could include being tortured and confined to solitary in a small cell, which is EXACTLY what has been reported by former detainees like David Hicks. They are also held at the discretion of the U.S. Government, without charge, and without hope of justice being done (by that I mean REAL justice, not a military tribunal).

        • Peter A.

          “A lovely little war” was what one correspondent called the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada. Most saw Operation Urgent Fury, its official name, as a guaranteed victory. The Caribbean island, the smallest independent country in the Western Hemisphere, was no match for American military might. Reagan championed the invasion as another step toward ridding the world of Communism, but the big victory over the little island also served as a major public relations coup for the recently battered administration.

          This is from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-grenada/

          So here we have a much larger nation, a bully in my not-so-humble-opinion, launching an invasion of a tiny Caribbean island simply because they could. What kind of idiot would call a WAR ‘lovely’?!

        • Peter A.

          Article on drone attacks:

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/21/drone-strikes-international-law-un

          Within the article they are referred to as ‘extrajudicial killings’, which is entirely appropriate. Russia and China, two old Cold War adversaries that had long been criticised for their alleged human rights abuses during that ‘war’ by the U.S., condemn the attacks.

          Now, do you still think that ninety percent of what I mentioned is ‘bullcrap’? If so, I am looking forward to seeing both your evidence that this is indeed so, and your skillful interpretation of that evidence and the corresponding argumentation, by you, that shows, without much room for doubt, that I am wrong.

          • Rob H. Hood

            CIA: Capitalism’s Invisible Army. Don’t waste your time/effort debating with Neil. He’s a true parrot I mean patriot.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Except Dan- we need no help in our own implosion. We are doing it to ourselves via the blood(money) sucking MIC and corporate malfeseance. To blame outsiders is the ultimate con game, thus the “Red Scare” until they imploded with the help of the arms race (MIC). The MIC is addicted to war in any form, and is bleeding us dry and will continue to do so as long as it can. People like you are either wittingly or unwittingly grand assistants in their propaganda activities. It is highly ironic, to say the least, for you to point the finger at propaganda when you yourself are happily and self-righteously in the thick of it. Using a ridiculous article like the one above, no matter the source, is an excelleent example of your own trolling.

  • klem

    I agree, this is a great idea folks, work less and save the planet!

    And while you’re on the beach saving the planet, I’ll gladly take your job, thank you very much. Lol!

    cheers

    klem

  • NEILIO

    You had me fooled Peter. With your position on AGW I was really very surprised, and disheartened, to find out that you are an American hating nut. So since you asked for it, I shall address everything here one at a time.

    1. invasion of Granada, 1983….. I remember this. I was in 11th grade in high school when it happened. All I knew at the time was that we went in to rescue a bunch of medical students who were in danger. This was a fact, like you say. But the way you say that we just invaded Granada is a fact, and give no reasons as to why that was a bad thing, is curious. As though Reagan woke up one morning and just decided to invade Granada. As though things were just peachy down there. Well he didn’t….. and it wasn’t.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-grenada/
    “Caribbean leaders echoed Reagan’s own fear: that Grenada, with its socialist government and proximity to Cuba, could become a Communist beachhead in the Caribbean.”

    “Also weighing on Reagan was the security of the 800 American medical students enrolled at St. George’s School of Medicine in the former British commonwealth. After the coup, there was violence and anarchy, and with martial law and a shoot-on-sight curfew in effect in Grenada, Reagan was joined by many of his advisers, as well as much of the American public, in believing that the rescue of the American students was justification for an invasion.”

    “Reagan’s credibility was bolstered by what the 5,000-strong American invading force found on the island: a cache of weapons that could arm 10,000 men — automatic rifles, machine guns, rocket launchers, antiaircraft guns, howitzers, cannon, armored vehicles and coastal patrol boats. In all, out of 800 Cubans, 59 were killed, 25 were wounded, and the rest were returned to Havana upon surrender. Forty-five Grenadians died, and 337 were wounded. America also suffered casualties: 19 dead and 119 wounded. The medical students came home unharmed.”

    Now, you might think that the invasion went against international law. Right? Wrong! I suggest you read the following document. It’s quite facinating.

    http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1424&context=iclr
    “In light of the facts known, the U.S. authorities were justified in making a determination that the U.S. citizens were in imminent danger. In addition, the U.S. citizens who were present on Grenada confirmed the existence of imminent danger upon their return to the United States. Although the citizens had not been taken hostage, the situation in Grenada indicated that there was a strong possibility that, had they not been rescued, they would have been taken hostage by the revolutionary forces.”

    As far as the OAS charter goes, it seems to me that Granada kind of threw that out the window when the coup sent their government decending into chaos. But that’s just my personal opinion.

  • Peter A.

    What started this little exchange was the claim, by Dan, that ‘the power and prestige of the United States has been under assault from several corners of the world for a long time’, which I found to be far-fetched to say the least. I responded by pointing out that this claim was not only wrong, but horribly so, and I gave a list of examples of where the exact opposite had occurred (i.e. the U.S. assaulting other nations). You claimed the list was ’90 percent bullcrap’, to which I gave evidence that it was not so.

    Now – the justification(s) given for the past and present actions by the U.S. Government can be debated for the rest of eternity, but my (I’ll admit, angry) response to the original claim (i.e. the United States is under siege from outside, sinister forces – or words to that effect), was not just an anti-U.S. rant by someone who doesn’t like what Americans claim they stand for, but it was for the purpose of correcting what I perceived to be either a bizarre misunderstanding, or blatant lie, by Dan.

    As for Granada, yes, there are two sides to this story, and the quote I gave (the first paragraph) is one side. If I had wanted to deliberately hide the other side I would not have provided the link. I remember the students, but I don’t recall the reason(s) as to why the Reagan Administration believed they were in immediate danger and therefore needed to be rescued. It seemed at the time that the students provided the convenient pretext for the sending in of the troops in order to eliminate the perceived threat that a communist regime in the Caribbean would pose. It appeared to be just a little too convenient, too much like a propaganda coup for the U.S. Administration.

    Anyway, there’s no need to be ‘disheartened’, because I’m not a nut, just someone who is tired of all of the (mainly right-wing) conspiracy theories floating around on the internet, masquerading as truth. I’ve just spent most of this afternoon going over many of the nutty beliefs that are held by some people about the U.N.’s ‘Agenda 21’ programme; they actually believe that it is part of a plot, by the Illuminati, to impose a one-world government. If they actually bothered to do a little research, they would understand the history of this organisation and its purpose and goals, and realise that ‘the Illuminati’ no longer actually exists. One of the frequent claims these very same conspiracy-theorists make is that the power and prestige of the United States is being slowly drained away through the signing of sinister international treaties, that it is ‘under assault from several corners of the world’, which is just not true at all.

  • Peter A.

    The article also states that:

    ‘Reagan was most concerned by the presence of Cuban construction workers and military personnel building a 10,000-foot airstrip on Grenada. Though Bishop had claimed the purpose of the airstrip was to allow commercial jets to land, Reagan believed its purpose was to allow military transport planes loaded with arms from Cuba to be transferred to Central American insurgents.’

    and

    ‘For Reagan, Grenada was an unmitigated success: a defeat of Communism and Castro, and a warning to the Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Fortunately for Reagan, by the time of the 1984 election, the Grenada success replaced the bitter memory of the massacre at Lebanon.’

    So, one could argue (if one were really cynical – like me) that the ultimate purpose of the invasion was not to secure the freedom of the students (although that was desirable too), but to send a strong message to the other Marxist regimes (Cuba and Nicaragua) that any gains they made in the Caribbean region would be stopped, and then reversed, by the intervention of U.S. forces.

    (Sorry for the double post, I often click ‘submit’ too early)

    • NEILIO

      Ok. So what? That’s all gravy. Bottom line is that it was not against international law, and it removed some communist expansion into the region. A plus plus.

  • NEILIO

    2. funding of ‘contras’ in Nicaragua, 1980?s……. Ok this one is bad. And like I said, you listed some valid points. And this one was definately a mistake.
    That said, if you look at the history of Nicaragua it’s been ruled by bastards for a long, long time. So Reagan’s choices were between communist bastards, or capitalist bastards. He chose to support the capitalist bastards. Which is in line with his doctrine to halt the spead of communism. Reagan’s error was in his implementation of that doctrine in an illegal fashion. In this case I support the doctrine, but I can’t condone the methods used.

    • Peter A.

      Yes, this IS really bad – your comment that is. So – R. Reagan DID support ‘capitalist bastards’, but according to you that is okay, because these same bastards were opposed to the communist ones. This is an insane position to hold, for you are basically saying that it is right to do wrong, to commit evil acts, if, in doing so, a different kind of evil is eliminated in the process. How can anyone possibly justify this? It is illogical, unethical, and it defies common-sense.

  • Rob N. Hood

    “Communist expansion”- get it you “American hating nut”?! That is all you need to know about the intellect and spiritual status of the Right in this the late great US of A. Got it Peter? Ok, good. Now go do something more worthwhile like clipping your toenails. Unless you are really directing your deep posts to someone other than our resident skeptic (and damn proud of it!). Damn those Communists!! *Sigh, starts working on 2012 USA tax returns that helps pay for the monstrous MIC…* But hey we beat them commies!! Head-desk.

    • Peter A.

      I’m really starting to lose my patience with Neilio; he seems to think that any crime, as long as it has the ultimate goal of ‘stopping Communism’, can be excused, and then forgotten.

  • NEILIO

    Ok. Ok. I am starting to smell a set up here. Basically all of the “atrocities” commited by the USA that you listed have one of two things in common. One, American intervention in communist expansion. And two, America protecting it’s own national interests. I shall not apologise for either one.
    Are you familiar with the name Fordren? If you’ve seen the movie Braveheart, he was the guy who kneeled before Wallace and claimed he was there to “give his life for him.” And then produced a stiched cloth and said his wife made it for him. And then he tried to assasinate Wallace. I have come to the conclusion that you, Peter, are Fordren. It’s a shame because you did articulate the anti-AGW position very well. Too bad that it was just play acting. I must say that you are an exellent liar.

    • Peter A.

      Look, this is really getting ridiculous. I’m not ‘play-acting’ when it comes to my position regarding the claims made, by most environmentalists, about global-warming. Even if I were ‘anti-American’ (I’m NOT, I just don’t like nutty right-wingers – especially religious ones) that would NOT automatically make me a global-warming alarmist. Are you really THAT dense Neilio that you can’t grasp the idea that a person can hold views that are neither consistently right-wing nor consistently left-wing?

      I’m not ‘Fordren’, lol, but perhaps you are Glenn Beck, or Karl Rove, or one of those other extremists who like to think that anything that is done in the name of the Almighty U.S.A. can only ever be good.

    • Peter A.

      ‘America protecting it’s own national interests. I shall not apologise for either one.’

      That is precisely the smug, superior and stubborn attitude that is responsible for many people across the globe hating the United States. This attitude is truly disgusting and disgraceful. If ‘protecting’ your ‘national interests’ means invading other sovereign states, then perhaps the rest of the world, through the U.N., should send in the peacekeepers to forcibly disarm what can only be regarded as a threat to world peace (i.e. your country).

      You, and people like you, really do need to wake up and realise that as long as your nation continues to play the schoolyard bully, using coercion and violence to ‘protect its interests’ in regions of the globe it has no business being in (like the islands of the Caribbean), then the downward spiral that it is now on will be exacerbated by the nations of the rest of the world deciding they have had enough of the cowboy diplomacy of a country that neither appreciates, nor understands, that not everyone wants to be just like them.

  • Rob N. Hood

    The right likes to try and discredit anyone who disagrees with them, such as resorting to name calling, “liar” etc., which is a way of compartmentalising them so as to rest their minds that they have “figured” that person out and can place them into a box. Neil has been the perfect example of what is wrong with the Right, and he continues to display it after all this time. Nothing has changed his way of thinking, and I know that nothing will, or it would have at least slightly by now (although it does appear he is gotten away from the most egregious examples of hypocrisy, or I may just be imaging that). If you’ve been working on that Neil I congratulate you, seriously.

    Again, though, it is black and white thinking, the inabilit, to fully utilize the right side of the brain, for more abstract thought processing. It is a “brain” thing I am certain of that, and it afflicts people all around the world and has thru the ages, thus a major contribitor IMO of the constant wars, hatreds, prejudices, etc. that have plagued mankind. I think it’s also an evolutionary thing and that humans are becoming more enlightned, slowly of course which is unfortunate but that is the way evolution works for the most part. I say this because we have come a long way, in some respects, from the ugliest aspects of our collective past.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.