Should part of the environmental movement be about creating good green jobs?

Answer 1

I have to disagree with Brians answer, but only the no part. The

Rationale is accurate but a more precise answer would be that it is already part of the environmental movement.

With the move to efficiency and it's broad impact it will tend to make all jobs greener while creating many news ones in much the same way as the space program has done.

Right now all of those jobs are going overseas to countries that took the initiative while we here in the US sit around listening to a bunch of cowering nay sayers who are afraid to face reality.

The fact is that we are already losing billions of dollars each year to other countries that are in the lead in areas of green technologies. Last year the green industry had a trade value in excess of 4 billion dollars, and very little of that went to US firms and employees, while a lot of the customers of that industry were here in the US.

The real fact is that with all the anti-environmental fear mongering and paranoids we are missing out on one of the greatest opportunities for an economic boom of massive proportions because we waste too much time catering to big oil interests and the anti-eco pundits.

One of the areas that America has always competed best in are areas of creative application of technology and innovation and areas that require highly skilled and motived workers. The green revolution is precisely the kind of market that America should be focusing on and grabbing the greatest share of, for our own good as well as the good of the rest of the world. It is the kind of honorable competition that fits well with the long standing stated ethics that are the foundation of this nation since it's formation.

It is an absolute manifestation of the principle of vested and informed motivated self-interest that is the fundamental basis of the American nation.

For America to not be a leader in the field would be the ultimate form of hypocrisy on many levels.

Answer 2

The whole focus of "creating jobs" is just political propaganda. For example, when Reagan is regaled as a creator of jobs, this discounts the fact that good, high paying manufacturing jobs went over seas and were replaced by low paying service industry jobs.

Anything we as a society do comes from jobs. Changing our society will change many peoples jobs. Growth is not as important as quality. In our country the rich have been getting far richer, and the other 98% of us have been working harder and harder to maintain our standards of living.

Reducing our consumerism (the reduce part of reduce-reuse-recycle) can actually stifle trade a bit. Our system or relentless consumption is actually artificially inflating our job sector. For example, the health care system here in the US is hugely bloated with bureaucracy, much more so that in the most bureaucratic state controlled health system. So, if we fixed this system, made it much less expensive, with much better results and greater coverage, then we would actually lose a large amount of jobs. However, these are skilled jobs, so they would translate into other skilled jobs of similar type. The money created by efficiency could then be used to stimulate more economic growth.

Answer 3

When we talk about environmental movement and jobs you have to understand it is creating jobs and may be more than expectations.

Answer 4

Certainly. If the government would support research and investment in solar and wind power, both areas would create many new jobs. This should be part of the governmental policy.

Answer 5

No. And here's why:
Almost all environmental actions, by their natures, create jobs. For example, requiring that power plants install scrubbers means that someone has to build the scrubbers, and someone has to sell the scrubbers, and someone has to install the scrubbers.

Answer 6

If u are part of the lead group u could make a mint. But most of us will just be robbed under the lie that they are saving the world.