|
What is a green job anyway? |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by Sam Newell
|
If you haven’t heard the term green job uttered hundreds of times of late from politicians, industry leaders, union leaders and environmentalists then you must have been living under a rock for the past six months. No other term apart from credit crunch seems to have had as much press but what is all the fuss about?
In the US, President Obama has promised to spend $150 billion over 10 years creating 5 million new green collar jobs and he is not the only one to see the push to a low carbon economy as the answer.
Here in the United Kingdom and across Europe political leaders have been promoting the creation of renewable energy jobs as a very necessary step in the drive to reduce carbon emissions, and as one of the key levers in combating the current worldwide financial crisis.
In the UK, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has promised that this month’s Budget will be a “job creator, a quality of life improver, and an environment-enhancing measure” outlining a “green” path to economic revival. Brown has previously stated 400,000 new green jobs could be created over the next eight years if the UK transitions to a low carbon economy.
But what is green collar? What makes it different from blue or white collar? Why does it matter? And why does the issue appear so controversial?
Some more sceptical have argued that the term green job is little more than “green washing” and a term used by politicians for political ends; they argue that actually green collar jobs are no different or perhaps less efficient than the blue collar jobs they are replacing. This is an argument that is sure to rage on for some time.
For all the talk of green jobs, there is probably equal confusion about what actually qualifies as a green job.
If an employee is working for a car manufacturer on a sports car: blue collar. If the same worker at the same company is working on a hybrid does is that a green collar job?
Phil Angelides, Chair of the Apollo Alliance (a coalition of environmental groups, labour unions and politicians promoting the low carbon economy) states that to be green collar job "has to pay decent wages and benefits that can support a family. It has to be part of a real career path, with upward mobility. And it needs to reduce waste and pollution and benefit the environment.”
His colleague and Chief Executive of the Apollo Alliance Lucy Blake adds “A green collar job is in essence a blue-collar job that has been upgraded to address the environmental challenges of our country.”
Van Jones, social activist and advisor to President Obama says a green collar job is "a family-supporting, career-track job that directly contributes to preserving or enhancing environmental quality." Jones’s site Green For All adds “most green collar jobs are middle-skill jobs requiring more education than high school, but less than a four-year degree -- and are well within reach for lower-skilled and low-income workers as long as they have access to effective training programs and appropriate supports”.
So in the end does the definition really matter? Possibly, but certainly not quite as much as the key issues of unemployment, economic recovery, climate change, energy security and peak oil, which the push for a low carbon economy seeks to tackle.
Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club claim that green jobs are a victory for the environment and for workers. The founder of RenewableEnergyJobs.com, the global green job site, Sam Newell agrees. “To me it’s quite simple, green jobs are good for the employee and good for the environment and that can’t be bad.” He argues “comparing the efficiency of green collar jobs with. those in other sectors of manufacturing or perhaps old energy doesn’t quite add up. You are comparing apples and oranges; they are not like for like. It’s pointless to compare them using one measure such as energy output per employee. You need to take a range of important factors such as carbon production and environmental impact into consideration which none of these arguments appears to do.”
Green jobs are already a growing part of the global economy. As demand has risen for clean energy and environmentally responsible manufacturing, green collar workers are producing everything from wind turbines to electric cars to organic clothing and food.
With the serious issues of climate change and the development of affordable, secure and sustainable energy sources for all it looks like the green job is here to stay regardless which definition you subscribe to.
Sam Newell is a renewable energy recruitment specialist and the founder of RenewableEnergyJobs.com the job site for the global alternative energy sector.
|
|
|
So Many Problems – Too Few Solutions |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
M
odern scientists often have a difficult time comprehending the amount of knowledge ancient man possessed. It’s not that these brain-monsters of today are selling past accomplishments short. It’s simply due to the sudden emergence of intelligent human from hunched-over ape. The gap is relatively short on our current life scale, much less an evolutionary scale. The great pyramids of Egypt, thought to be built around 3000 BC, used a series of reflective mirrors made from metal which harnessed the sunlight and lit the insides of these gigantic buildings. Over 5 years in our past, yet ancient man still realized the immense powers of the sun.
The sun is all-powerful. If it were to burn out, Earth would be engulfed by the fiery red rage of our star before it went into supernova and created a black hole that would eventually draw in the outer planets and devour their mass. Over the course of modern history, we’ve realized what the ancients knew all along: The sun is our life force and the best chance we have at energy. But for some reason, modern humans have yet to devise a way for the sun’s power to effectively run our lives.
Humans are the most innovative species in the history of this blue planet. Never before has a living being been able to process information in such a way that it can save its own life and the lives of others. We are “thinking man,” Homo sapiens. We possess a wealth of knowledge that can unravel the deepest mysteries of the universe. Our ingenuity has made air and space travel possible. We can communicate with people across the globe at the speed of light. Our technology is vast; however, our desire to profit is even larger.
We have the technology at our fingertips to create a cure for this crisis of Global Warming. The answers seem so obvious to anyone who keeps up with the latest world happenings. Great strides have been made in the field of solar and wind power. Even nuclear fission has the ability to become nuclear fusion. We know how to recreate the birth of a star. All that we know; all that we’re learning, and still the question: Why haven’t these innovations been implemented in our lives to heal our planet?
What is slowing down the progress? It would seem as if human ingenuity has taken a back seat to the almighty dollar. Unfortunately, there’s no way for governments to capitalize from “free” or renewable energy sources. The power to create is in the hands of the individual. But the power to distribute is in the hands of government. It’s not a hard thing to comprehend; government’s purpose is supposedly to play the role of father to the sons and daughters of a nation. However, these protective figures would much rather protect themselves and secure a financial future while letting the world’s future fall by the wayside.
The lack of government involvement in this time of crisis could very well be the downfall of not only the human race, but the entire planet. 5,000 years from now, when the next species looks back at our lives, will they be surprised at the advancements we made, or disgusted at the technology we failed to put into action?
|
|
Whose Medicine Am I Taking? |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
M
ore recently, an investigative team from the Associated Press (AP) surveyed the water source for 50 major cities in the U.S. as well as the water source for 52 smaller communities. The study found up to 56 drug chemicals in the drinking water in some areas and the widespread presence of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water of more than 41 million Americans.
In the past, environmental groups and governmental agencies focused upon the dangers of fertilizers, mercury, lead, and other chemicals with obvious adverse effects on the environment and the health of all species. Only in the last few years have scientists recognized the potential danger of pollution from pharmaceutical drugs.
Scientists estimate that as much as 90% of a medicine dosage can be excreted in the feces and/or urine of the person or animal taking it. In addition, many people flush unused drugs down the toilet or place them in the garbage. Whether the chemicals enter as sewage or leach through a landfill, they end up in the water supply where they are subject to varied and unpredictable chemical transformations and interactions. What is certain is that the filtering mechanisms of current water systems do not remove the pharmaceutical drugs from the water fish inhabit or the water animals and humans drink.
What can be done?
1Pharmaceutical companies could be required to evaluate the excretion percentage and possible transformations of each drug for which it seeks approval.
2Municipal water management systems could be required to test the area water supply on a regular basis for the presence of specified pharmaceuticals and to report the results to the public and to an appropriate agency.
3Consumers could be required to dispose of unused drugs in a specified manner. The EPA has recently published guidelines (see link below).
4Companies could be encouraged to develop filtering processes which would remove a greater percentage of the pharmaceutical chemicals.
Given its potential to alter the lifecycle of fish, animals, and humans, emerging pharmaceutical contamination certainly warrants greater attention and study by governments and their environmental agencies. For further information, refer to these articles:
|
|
Do Your Part to Make Every Day “Earth Day” |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
E
arth Day or “days,” as it were, is meant to be an eye-opening time of awareness where individuals take action to help the planet in some beneficial way. This could mean simply throwing your aluminum in the recycling bin instead of the regular trash can. Or it could mean making the switch from your gas guzzling Mustang to a more fuel-efficient hybrid. And if you really want to help, you could form a community activist group and take charge of bringing awareness to the public’s doorstep. Regardless of what you choose to do on Earth Day, your mother thanks you for taking the time to consider her state of being.
There are currently two observances of Earth Day. The first, celebrated by the United Nations and founded by activist John McConnell in 1969, falls on the March equinox. The second, which was brought to prevalence by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson in 1970, is celebrated in many countries on April 22. The idea is for people all over the world to throw aside their petty grievances and do something kind for our planet. These days are devoted to preserving the harmonic nature of our world. But if you care about our planet, why settle for 2 days out of 365 to show your appreciation? Why not make every day “Earth Day”?
You can change your own life in such a way that will tremendously benefit the earth, while not affecting your comfort level one bit. Don’t believe it? What about simply choosing to use recycled products when necessary and making sure you also recycle? How difficult can that be? You can take an extra 2 seconds when throwing an item away and making sure that it ends up in the right bin. You can purchase recycled paper and plastics… the label is there for you to know.
As a lowly individual, you can spend a quick 50 dollars to better insulate your home. Then in the winter, you’ll use less heat. And in the summer, you won’t need to blast the AC. Replace your light bulbs with CFLs that use 70% less energy. Drive less and drive smart. Carpool and save gas. You can buy energy efficient products, use cold water to wash instead of hot, or even do something as simple as planting a tree to help the planet breathe. These steps can be taken everyday, becoming a natural part of your life with little effort at all.
You can also do more to help the winds of change blow on everyone’s face. You, by yourself, can be the most powerful tool in the fight against pollution, Global Warming, deforestation, whaling, and many other causes that are damaging our precious and irreplaceable planet. Simply spread the world at every opportunity. You don’t need to ram your views down someone’s throat by yelling, “Change now or else!” To the contrary, approach someone kindly and state, “You can save over $60/monthly on your bills by using cold water and switching to CFL bulbs.” You’d be surprised how many people will convert to your way of thinking. The butterfly effect can be tremendous.
|
|
E-Waste – Who Moved My Cheese? |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
I
nstead, many of the so-called ‘reputable’ recyclers in the U.S. simply export the used device to a developing country where labor costs are low, environmental standards are low and concerns for the health and welfare of its people are even lower.
In August 2008, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) alerted Congress to the problem in a report to the House of Representatives entitled “Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports Through More Comprehensive Regulation”. In November 2008, CBS’s 60 Minutes brought the matter to the attention of the general public in a story called “Following the Trail of Toxic E-Waste”.
The 60 Minutes article relates the tale of an electronic recycling drive in Colorado where responsible citizens waited in long lines to give their used TVs, computers, cell phones, etc. to a recycler who assured them their contributions would be properly recycled. Then, 60 Minutes traced those exact devices in a shipment to Guiya, China where they were slated for “recycling” using the most primitive and unsafe methods.
Although not the only destination of e-waste, Guiya, China is an infamous one-industry port town which processes up to 80% of the U.S. electronic waste. Most of its 30,000 residents (including children) work for less than $3.00 a day, exposing themselves to certain and excessive lead, mercury and PVC poisoning.
In its study, the GOA conducted a “sting” claiming to be a foreign broker interested in importing CRT’s. Recycling companies in Colorado, Washington, Illinois, Wisconsin and other states responded to the offer, knowing that such a sale would be illegal. The GAO report pointed out two basic problems and obvious solutions:
The U.S. has not joined the community of developed nations to adopt standards for recycling e-waste … it should adopt legislation to do so.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not attempted to enforce (and has no plans to enforce) even the limited standards the U.S. has agreed to … it should.
Certainly, it is a travesty that the richest nation in the world is one of only a very few (Afghanistan, Haiti and the U.S.) refusing to ratify the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. And it is a travesty that the U.S. agency charged with enforcing environmental laws refuses to enforce all the provisions of the primary law governing the disposal of solid and hazardous waste in the U.S.: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Ironically, this issue presents an opportunity for the government and technological companies to promote the reuse of valuable resources, develop “greener” technologies, and create many “green-collar” jobs.
Consider this proposal which assumes that waste disposal is a valid function of a modern government and that the cost for recycling should be incorporated into the price of the product:
The government would levy a ‘recycling’ tax on each electronic device sold or brought into the country. Private industries, certified by the government and paid with the ‘recycling’ tax, would collect used devices, employ workers to dismantle all parts into their proper categories, process each category to recover and sell all valuable reusable materials, and legally and safely dispose of waste.
This basic solution, while simplified here, would place the onus of disposal where it has always belonged but was never levied: the user.
For more information, refer to:
|
|
|
Articles 
in Welcome Wagon by sterileK, 19-08-09 10:05