I ONCE read an article that says in order for us to be more sustainable, we need to reduce our work-hours.

The argument was that the long hours we work, which in Malaysia equates to no less than 40 hours a week, means workers are more likely to rely on ‘conveniences’ and disposable items. These are heavily-packaged fast food such as instant noodle, not forgetting, single-use goods such as the plastic spoons and Styrofoam containers to pack our so-called ‘fast food’.

The reason for this dependency is because workers are generally ‘too pressed for time’. In another words, this is a vicious cycle.

The long work hours allows our workforce to produce and therefore, buy more stuff, which in turn demands more of our resources leading to an inevitable stream of more waste.

I am sure many would agree with the ‘work less for sustainability’ statement though it does seem unconventional. But it is a very convincing argument, especially since it is also very do-able.

The article also argues that even though greener technologies and alternative energy sources are some of the ways to overcome decreasing natural resources, they in themselves will not stop climate change nor will they help create a sustainable society.

It argues that the very essence of a sustainable society is not to be more efficient at what we do, but to work fewer hours in order to have what we really need. And what our society need is time.

Take for example, the weekly work-hours of the French. A French worker does not work for more than 35 hours a week compared to the Americans who work 40 hours a week.

The French are also found to be healthier than their American counterparts.

Overall, Europeans are also found to be only about half as likely to suffer from chronic illnesses, Type 2 diabetes, hypertension or cancer, upon reaching retirement age compared to an American of the same age.

Studies have shown that Europeans are healthier as a result of more exercise, more socialising with friends and families, less stressed and get more sleep. All these are made possible simply because they have more time.

Additionally, Europeans are not only more personally sustainable due to the fact that they live longer, but they are also more environmentally sustainable.

On average, Europeans produce half the amount of air pollution, use less energy and produce less solid waste and greenhouse gases compared to the Americans, even though they also enjoy the same material lifestyle.

The study also argued that should any nation decide to reduce the work hours of its workforce, this will help reduce the energy used for transportation because having more time means one is more likely to walk, bike or take public transport.

So, in response to the recent hike of fuel cost, we should probably consider reducing our work-week. Doing so may help our workforce save large sums of money.

Fuel expenses will be lessened, so would traffic congestion. And it may even encourage more of us to use the public transport as we would definitely have more time. This of course would encourage the public transport companies to offer more efficient services to commuters. As mentioned, this is a cycle, albeit a better one.

Of course total production would be reduced slightly but on a social level, this can make us more sustainable because of the reduction in energy and resource used, not to mention reduced health problems and healthcare costs.

Employers should seriously promote the idea of offering time instead, in exchange for some of the monetary gains or material things for its workforce. Such a move would leave Malaysians healthier, happier and more connected to each other, their communities and their environment.

The writer is the driver-designate for her three kids and husband, and wishes she has enough time in her hands to take her children on a leisurely bus-ride around Kuching city.

3rd Voice is a regular feature initiated by AZAM and Sarawak Development Institute. Feedback can be forwarded to paulina@azam.org.my