..... you nailed it!!
"If it is a job that wouldn't otherwise be done by the free market, but will only be done if government throws greenbacks at it"
Posted by: Shawn Nelson on June 30, 2009
When the government counts the green jobs, will they count the jobs lost in non-green areas in the same report? Most unlikely!
Posted by: Andy Ward on June 30, 2009
... the old name for green is productivity improvement. Anything that takes less resources to make is green. Isn't that what we packaging professionals do and have been doing as part of our job.
Posted by: Anonymous on June 30, 2009
Outstanding! Your analysis is much clearer and comprehensive that regular media including some science magazines! We should keep the debate open and alive. I have not seen the first "green job" created.
Posted by: Jorge Romero on June 30, 2009
Governments need to stop wasting our lives.
In thinking about this. Is a Senator or Congressman a green job? Is a GreenPeace protestor a green job? Is a banker a green job? Seems to me most of these consume and waste and give little to nothing. Would be interesting to see how they justify themselves in stopping waste.
Posted by: Paul Zepf on June 30, 2009
This is exactly my problem with sustainability. What started out as a positive initiative seems to have turned into a concept that can not get out it's own way!
Posted by: Eric on June 30, 2009
Most of the money, probably as much as 70% will go to government agencies to administer these programs.
Your editorial is spot on.
Posted by: David Parker on June 30, 2009
Great article. You may be getting yourself on the "hit list" if you keep peeking out from under "The Wool".
If we (the packaging community) develop a packaging material that extends shelf life or insures products are delivered to consumers in a saleable condition, haven't these innovations reduced the need for energy? If packaging allows for food stuffs and fresh produce to be grown in optimum conditions yet distributed throughout the continent, haven't we reduced carbon emmissions? If packaging allows consumers to prepare nutritious meals faster, more conveniently in their homes, doesn't that impact our health and energy consumption?
We (the packaging community) should stand up in a unified way to explain the "green" benefits we provide our planet insyead of taking it lying down while the media and governments try to relegate us into the "dark ages" and criminal status.
Let's all aspire to the Triple Bottom Line and start telling the truth about Green.
Thanks for the opportunity.
Mark V. Ewing
Braveheart Strategic Services, LLC
Posted by: Anonymous on June 30, 2009
I really like your points - how can we have "green" jobs (e.g. wind turbine mechanic) without the steel to assemble it? To build "green" infrastructure requires non-green industry input - at least for now. In the future
perhaps we can have solar powered steel mills but we have to build them first. Continuous improvement of manufacturing processes is really a "green" process in itself (unless perhaps the "improvement" involves using toxic chemicals).
Posted by: Glenn Whiteside on June 30, 2009
We need to break down manufacturing the wind turbine like a cost benefit analysis. Calculate how much energy is produced from this renewable source per how much energy is required to produce that energy (inc all materials). Compare this to a coal power plant and account for the energy required to extract and process coal as well as all the manufacturing materials and processes.
I think in the end we would see many cases show more energy is produced by renewable sources than non-renewable. Bottom line - money needs to be made by being cleaner and the govt should think about where they want to spend its subsidies (and try to ignore the coal and oil lobbyists throughout Washington)
Posted by: Jim on July 2, 2009
It's good to know other people are slightly disturbed by the lack of a definition for green jobs. As a long-time environmental professional I figured I likely held a green job, but with the focus on renewables and green building I'm questioning this assumption.
I discussed it a little more on my blog, but if $60 billion of the stimulus package is going towards encouraging the green economy and building green jobs, then Van Jones should probably develop a robust definition of the term.
Posted by: Ian W. on July 31, 2009