1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

The Green Jobs Myth

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IntheNet, Jan 14, 2010.

  1. macrumors regular


    What's a green job? Even the government can't define it:

    Obama to create 17,000 green jobs. What's a green job?
    Despite the president's initiative, no one really knows how to count green jobs. A definitive answer is months away.
    The Christian Science Monitor
    By Laurent Belsie Staff writer / January 8, 2010
    President Obama announced $2.3 billion in federal tax credits on Friday, which he said would create 17,000 new "green" jobs. Which is great, except that no one can count green jobs because, fundamentally, no one knows what a green job is.

    Wait... if "green jobs" are so good, why do we have to spend billions in government subsidies for them? An earlier WSJ article asks the right questions:


    The 'Green Jobs' Myth
    The Wall Street Journal
    We hope the incoming Obama economics team is paying attention to the worker and industry backlash in Europe. Mr. Obama is still embracing the line from Greenpeace and the Environmental Defense Fund that cap and trade can generate five million "green jobs." If you throw enough tax subsidies at something, you're bound to get some new jobs. But if the money for those subsidies comes from higher energy taxes -- and a cap and trade regime would amount to as much $1.2 trillion of new taxes -- millions of jobs in carbon-using industry are also going to be lost.

    Lastly, what Green Job in manufacturing can't be done in China cheaper? So are these Green Jobs myths, or just more Obama lies?
  2. macrumors 604



    Green and China are pretty much on the other sides of the fence.
  3. macrumors G4


    Not true.

  4. macrumors 6502

    No one knows what a green job is? I do.

    It's a job involving the research, development and manufacturing of green industry products. You know, like solar panels, wind turbines, and high efficiency home improvement products.
  5. macrumors 604


  6. macrumors G5


    Yes- all good things too.
  7. macrumors 68020


  8. macrumors 68040


    Exactly. I don't get what's so difficult to understand?

    Just to add to that, I understand what the CSM article is getting at, but it's all just a political title anyways. At this point, who cares either way? Do we need more jobs? Yes. Do we need more 'green' things? Yes. So no matter how you classify something as a green job it's a win.
  9. macrumors G4


    Damn :( to be honest the only interesting thing about that article is that quote. For much more detail on what China (and the US) are doing take a look at the arguments made on: http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/158 - and you don't need a login to view that. You click on the dates at the top to view the arguments made on each day (I've got confused by that before :eek:).

    50 years is pretty generous to China too, they've only being growing fast since around 1980.
  10. macrumors G4

    When the Fundies say nobody knows or understands they actually mean they don't know or understand themselves, yet because they know best their not knowing must mean everybody is as ignorant as they are.

    Notice how they use those phrases a lot?
  11. Guest


    No, I think that they understand, but since the green movement doesn't fit into their type of crazy, they pretend to not understand.
  12. macrumors G4


    I never take a hard and fast figure from a politico during an election campaign at face value. The CSM is a well respected newspaper, btw.
  13. macrumors 68040


    Say what you will about the faith, but the CSM is a relatively highly respected publication.
  14. macrumors 604


    While true, it doesn't mean the Chinese government should continue with its disregard to environmental safety. They will talk environmental concern, but aren't quick to act on it.
  15. macrumors G4


    They have acted. See the following examples for starters.

    (EDIT: For some evidence of the forest cover improvements - see http://newswire.rockefeller.edu/?page=engine&id=549)

    (source for all)
  16. Guest


    Well, my bad. But with a name like that, you can't really blame me for the ':rolleyes:'

    I googled CSM after seeing your comments, and I've edited my comment about that newspaper.

    Now if only certain other members had the ability to admit they were wrong.....
  17. macrumors 68020


    As Eraserhead has pointed out they actually are doing quite a lot. The problem here is the industrialised countries have become rich at the expense of the environment and are now trying to pull the ladder up to prevent developing countries from doing the same. The painful truth is the only way to protect the earth is for developed countries to pay developing countries to adopt green technology.
  18. macrumors G4


    To be fair I've only shown one side of the debate here, I haven't covered any of the improvements that the US has made.
  19. macrumors regular


    Okay! Thanks.

    That's what I wanted to hear! I honestly did not know what the reference was to "green jobs" and what they actually were...question remains, however, why we are spending so much on them, if, as you say, they are the "development" of products when the Chinese can do it cheaper? Am I missing something that only we can do these? Can't Chinese manufacture these too for a lot less? Therefore, if that is true, why are we staking our future on something that's just going to be exported off-shore for manufacture?
  20. macrumors G4

    As a Mac user you should really understand this concept.

    Design in the USA + manufacturer in China = Profit
  21. macrumors G4


    By the time green manufacturing gets fully off the ground (and its worth moving the factory to a new location in China) it won't be significantly cheaper to export offshore to China as they'll be demanding similar wages to those in the US.
  22. macrumors 68040


    You can't outsource the installation of solar panels in Southern California to the Chinese... For example...
  23. macrumors 68020


    While I certainly support any movement to improve environmental conditions wherever in the world it may happen looking at the figures of energy consumption per capita for instance shows China consuming 1316 kilograms of oil equivalent per person and the U.S. 7885. Now how that energy is produced is of course important but I think it points to where green technology will make the most difference.(and where lowering consumption would be most important,not that the U.S. is the only country where consumption is so high).

    Source is Earthtrends and for 2005.
  24. macrumors 68020


    True, also a major part of green technology is localisation it's no good for instance making cheaper turbine blades in China for use in the U.S. if transportation costs (both in monetary and environmental terms) makes them more expensive and transportation costs are approaching the point where they will increase rapidly.
  25. macrumors 6502a


    I know this is just a political comic, but it's terrible. I just want to make sure ITN knows:

    American money is made out of Cotton and Linen, not paper.

    Both plants are weeds, not trees.

Share This Page