One Hour Cut, But What About Fuel?

As the world faces a fuel crisis amid tensions in the Middle East, the government has decided to reduce office hours by one hour. The weekly holiday remains unchanged at two days, meaning offices will operate five days a week, with one hour less work each day. In total, that accounts for five fewer working hours per week. But the question remains: will this really lead to meaningful fuel savings?

The logic seems simple. People still have to travel to and from the office every day. Whether by bus, train, private car, or any other vehicle, commuting fuel consumption does not automatically decrease just because office hours are reduced. Inside offices, electricity usage for lights, fans, air conditioning, and computers may drop slightly by one hour. But the bigger issue lies on the roads. The fuel burned in heavy morning and evening traffic congestion far outweighs the marginal savings from shorter office hours.

Now consider an alternative approach. What if the government had added one more weekly holiday? That would mean four working days and three days off. In that case, office hours could have remained at eight hours per day without reduction. A full extra day off would eliminate commuting for an entire day. Millions of people would stay off the roads, significantly reducing traffic congestion and fuel consumption. Office electricity use would also drop for a full day. Beyond that, employees would gain mental relief, family time, and a break from daily traffic stress.

So which option delivers greater benefit? A simple calculation suggests that reducing one hour per day across five days only saves limited office-related energy. In contrast, adding one full day off reduces both transportation fuel use and a full day of office operational costs. It also eases traffic congestion, reduces air pollution, and can improve productivity. Yet the government has not moved in that direction, instead choosing to adjust hours within the existing routine.

The core issue is this: reducing one hour of office time does not significantly change commuting patterns or workload pressure, while an additional weekly holiday could transform both energy consumption and quality of life. A comparison of work schedules shows only a small difference in total weekly hours between the two systems, raising the question of why such hesitation exists.

Perhaps it is rooted in administrative caution and traditional thinking. There is a common assumption that more holidays reduce productivity. However, global experience during the pandemic and energy crises has shown otherwise. Several countries have experimented with four-day workweeks, reporting maintained or even improved productivity in many sectors.

Still, the government has opted for the conservative route of a one-hour reduction. As a result, fuel savings remain limited, while public expectations for stronger action remain unmet. In the face of an energy crisis, the debate continues: is adjusting the clock enough, or is structural reform the real solution?