Want to fight global warming? Take the day off

Now, here’s a suggestion on how to beat global warming.

At Monday’s San Leandro City Council work session on affordable housing, Councilman Bill Stephens had an idea on how to reduce CO2 emissions while providing people with housing in the city: cut back the work week to four days instead of five.

He said he was surprised nothing had been proposed yet in any of the presidential debates to push back the work week since the global warming situation has become so dire. And he suggested that since people are living longer and spending more time at home, reducing the work week could keep people closer to home and less dependent on the automobile.

“It’s astonishing that we’re giving up more of our free time in America,” Stephens said Monday night.

Does anybody agree with this?


  • craig

    According to Robert Reich Americans work longer work weeks than any other idustrialized country. And we have to, with big incrases in housing , transportation and health care costs over the last decade.
    According to Reich 40 percent of college grads work over 50 hours a week and many of the less educated must work 50 hours or more to stay out of poverty.
    Europeans are at around 35 hours a week but have much better mass transportation, lower housing costs and non predator medical policies.
    A shorter work week is also a very good way of creating more jobs according to progressive economists.

  • peacenik

    Yet another glaring example our representatives are out of touch with effective environmental policy. Rather than identify and address local environmetal issues we have borderline comical shot-in-the dark proposals like this.

    It’s time we elect those with experience in environmental science. The east bay is replete with its own environmental issues, and we should seek the poltical power to take action locally.

  • What local environmental issues do you think should be identified and addressed, and how?

  • peacenik

    Alameda county, home to over one million inhabitants, consistently ranks in the top 10 most environmentally degraded counties in the state. From our four superfund toxic waste dumps in Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda to our abhorrent air and water quality, the east bay has serious economic concerns.

    Being a highly urbanized stretch of once pristine estuarine environment over 100 highly specialized, and indeed unique to any other place in the world are critically endangered due to high pesticide drift, invasive species, land use change and dumping of toxic chemicals into the bay.

    Not only do the native flora and fauna suffer, but indeed the inhaitants too. Rates of asthma and respiratory disease run rampant, particularly in areas of concentrated poverty where we locate our most polluting industrial plants.

    Those would be the most apparent issues worthy of attention, however I fear our leaders are far too uncommitted to resolving specific toxic pollution at hand while their constituents remain blithely unaware.

  • craig

    Creating a clean energy reverse mortgage CERM, see my site cleanenergyrm.org would leave people hard pressed NOT to invest into solar , wind energy and even electric cars. The global warming legislation HR3212 would appropriate for a year ,a fraction of what we spend on war in a week. Stark’s immediate response to the idea was “What about PG&E,” as though their profits come before protecting the planet.Poor PG&E. Maybe his slogan should be profit before planet.

    With a CERM, a homeowner would install solar units,reduce their CO2 emmissions significantly, recieve a rebate from the state and federal government ($9000 in California) lower their utility bill by 80 percent, raise the value of their property by $20,000 and THEN when they finally sold their home , they would pay for the solar.
    Sounds too good to be true. Well reverse mortgages are now available to Seniors who use them (approximately 200,000 a year) for the finer things in life like golf course fees and going out to fancy resturants and paying for medication with our bogus health care system.
    “What about PG&E” is where our elected officials heads are at, or maybe what they mean is “show me the money, chump.”We can’t make this an issue that politicians ride for contributions for 40 or so years, like health care.

    The media has also blacklisted this idea as well. They apparently don’t want to confuse the public with too much information .

    Editors note: We actually had a story about reverse mortgages in the Business section last year. -KS