How Green Is Your Collar?
As cities and states from New York to California to Minnesota race to invent policies to address global warming, new mandates for investment in green energy will produce many billions of investment dollars. In the short run, the Bush Administration stands in the way, but major federal legislation this year or next is almost a foregone conclusion–and the carbon market it will establish will generate hundreds of billions of dollars a year and create thousands, even millions, of new jobs. But the realities of how Americans will work and what jobs they will have in a green future are only beginning to be addressed.
Nearly 1,000 trade unionists, environmentalists, green businesspeople, political leaders and allies came together recently in Pittsburgh to explore these issues at the first annual conference on “Good Jobs, Green Jobs,” sponsored by the Blue-Green Alliance of the United Steelworkers Union and the Sierra Club.
It has taken labor a long time to address the threat of global warming–the AFL-CIO even lobbied against the Kyoto Protocol. It doesn’t help when environmentalists don’t stand up to insist on protecting workers from the pain that may accompany environmental protections. But all that may be changing. For example, the AFL-CIO Executive Council issued a statement March 4 on “greening the economy” that said, “It is time for our nation to take bold steps to meet the 21st century challenges related to climate change.”
There are both risks and opportunities for labor in the shift to a green economy. For coal miners, for example, restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions might mean real job losses, and many environmentalists are deeply concerned by the insistence by some union leaders on continuing a coal-based economy. But for Midwestern steelworkers, the building of parts for wind turbines is already a source of thousands of jobs.
There is a growing consensus that greening will on aggregate produce more jobs, but they are likely to be spread across a wide range of occupations and industries. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Teamsters sent significant delegations to the conference but didn’t call attention to jobs that are threatened or those likely to expand as a result of new climate change policies. Indeed, the conference focused more on the overall implications of those policies than on their consequences for particular unions. Marianne McMullen, SEIU communications director, told the conference that in years to come, “The environmental movement may be the only movement” as different groups come together to build a new economy.
But session after session at this conference produced pointed questions, the answers to which could help define meaningful strategies for labor unions and environmentalists to tackle the climate change crisis. Here’s a sample:
What Are Green Jobs?
As Blue-Green Alliance executive director David Foster noted in his opening remarks, green jobs are about “both product and process.” They include jobs that produce low-carbon energy, such as solar and wind power. But they are also jobs that perform any kind of work in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions: a job on a farm that uses less fertilizer or in a steel plant that uses less electricity would also be green. And most green jobs will look a lot like the old jobs, because that’s what they are: welders fabricating windmill parts, HVAC mechanics retrofitting heating systems, construction workers building energy-efficient buildings. Each is using old skills in green ways.
Public or Private?
Many speakers cited New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s call for a “Green New Deal.” But Friedman hastens to say that it should be one in which the government’s role is “not funding projects, as in the original New Deal, but seeding basic research, providing loan guarantees where needed and setting standards, taxes and incentives” that will stimulate the private sector to produce “clean power.” Many businesspeople at the conference echoed this view. But other participants saw the global warming catastrophe as a sign of the failure of markets. They argued that it required not just market solutions but large public investments and mandatory plans to reduce greenhouse gases.
Will the Poor Be Left Behind?
Van Jones of Green for All noted that the “old” industrial economy and its decline stranded a large underclass of poor people. He called for a “green wave” that can “lift all boats.” He described programs like the Oakland Green Jobs Corps and Solar Richmond, which are involving the most underprivileged urban youth in weatherization and solar panel installation, thereby creating a “green pathway out of poverty.” But he raised the concern that the new green economy might, like the old industrial economy, exclude the poor unless measures are taken to ensure that green jobs go to those who need them most.
Will Green Jobs Be Good Jobs?
The number of green jobs might radically increase, but the result might be little more than a green-collar sweatshop. As Michael Peck of the wind turbine manufacturer Gamesa USA, put it, “Green must mean job quality and wages.” He proposed including the Apollo Alliance’s green economy principles as job standards for public investments and subsidies, in the same way that public support now often requires meeting LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and other environmental standards for new buildings.
Will Green Jobs Be Union Jobs?
To win labor support, the push for green jobs will have to provide, if not guaranteed unionization, at least a guarantee of labor rights. Writer and former National Writers Union president Jonathan Tasini, blogging about the conference, complained, “Environmentalists and other policy folks have gotten the lingo down about ‘high-wage, good-paying’ jobs, but they still don’t seem to be able to use the word ‘union’ consistently.” He praised as an exception one speaker who said that green jobs generated with public monies have to include commitments of neutrality in union recognition campaigns.
Who Will Bear the Burden of Climate Change Policies?
Organized labor worldwide has called for a “just transition” to a low- carbon economy that will not place the burden of change on those who have the misfortune of working in industries that must undergo “green downsizing.” So far little has been done, or even planned, to take care of those like coal miners and power plant workers, who may lose their jobs as a direct effect of efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Not surprisingly, some of these constituencies and their unions have been among the most outspoken opponents of policies to address global warming.
If carbon trading and/or carbon taxes raise the cost of energy, how will it affect those who already cannot afford to heat their houses or get to work? SEIU’s Marianne McMullen expressed a “visceral reaction to lifestyle environmentalism” that demands consumers pay more for green products–such as energy-efficient light bulbs–when many low-income workers are barely able to make ends meet. And she pointed out that managers are likely to take advantage of environmental pressures to cut or speed up jobs: when recycling receptacles were introduced in offices, janitors often had to empty twice as many bins in the same time for the same pay.
How Will the Emerging Economic Crisis Affect Green Jobs?
The emerging recession will generate pressure for public jobs programs, and jobs fighting global warming could be a high priority. But the recession will also throw governments at every level into fiscal crisis. There was a move in Congress to add investment in green jobs to the recent economic stimulus package; it was defeated, but it could rise again as part of additional stimulus measures that are already being proposed. At the conference, Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope argued that any federal intervention into the mortgage crisis should require and provide capital for retrofitting the affected homes. “We need to make sure that as we clean up the mortgage mess, we also clean up the energy mess,” because both will drive people out of their homes.
Will Carbon Reduction Drive Jobs Abroad?
Labor’s concern that climate change policy might accelerate corporate- led globalization was evident throughout the conference. According to Marco Trbovich, assistant to Steelworkers president Leo Girard, the Lieberman-Warner bill would “encourage energy-intensive industries in the US to move production to those locations where the environmental rules are lax–wiping out thousands more US jobs in the process” and “paving the road to an economic hell for millions of working Americans.”
Economic Nationalism or Global Cooperation?
Many speakers paraphrased in one way or another Friedman’s statement that green is the “new red, white, and blue.” Yet despite considerable rhetorical flag-waving, many of the same speakers also called for global solidarity and cooperation in the face of a planetary crisis. There was a similar tension between the desire that new jobs be located in the United States (or even in one state rather than another) and condemnation of a competitiveness in which smokestack chasing, even green smokestack chasing, leads to a “race to the bottom.”
Will Climate Change Policies Cause a Political Backlash?
The nightmare scenario that keeps Jim Barrett, executive director of Redefining Progress, awake at night is that poorly designed measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions might lead to an anti-environmentalist political revolt.
What If Higher Energy Costs Put the Squeeze on the Middle Class?
The result, according to Barrett, could be “scorched political earth followed shortly by a scorched actual earth.” Climate policy is likely to fail in a global economy unless it takes into account the needs of working families.
Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Ryback noted that when he speaks to young audiences, they don’t see us facing distinct energy, security and environmental issues. Rather, they see shortage of fossil fuels, war for oil and global warming as part of the same dynamic. The Green Jobs conference made clear that global warming should not be seen primarily as an environmental issue but rather as a seismic shift with an impact similar to but even greater than the Industrial Revolution or globalization. The response to global warming will require big changes. Thank goodness some people are trying to figure out how these changes can benefit people as well as the planet.
Jeremy Brecher, Tim Costello and Brendan Smith are co-authors of the new book Globalization From Below: The Power of Solidarity.
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
I like responsible environmentalism, clean energy and jobs that support these things. But please ditch the “green collar” term. It is a misnomer. Nobody “wears” a shirt with a green collar. Surely there’s gotta be somebody who can think up better words to describe earth wisdom in government and business policy matters.
Same for “Green Party” too.
How long can we go on pushing band-aid remedies like Green Jobs and not act on real solutions like global birth control policies and direct democratic wealth redistribution to control unsustainable economic growth?
I have green shirts.
The nightmare scenario that keeps Jim Barrett, executive director of Redefining Progress, awake at night is that poorly designed measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions might lead to an anti-environmentalist political revolt.
**if we arent already in an anti-environmentalist phase i hate tos ee what the other type would be.
On the topic of words, environmentalism is the wrong word. Its a scientific, cold term that implies there is us and the environment when both are interconnected.
Dumb science, so narrow minded.
Some time ago I saw a public service announcement showing a beautiful photo of the Earth floating in space: the caption said, Love Your Mother.
I too dislike the term environmentalism. Perhaps some clever wordsmith reading this article can coin a new term which emphasizes that we are all children of the Earth and need to protect and heal it.
Environmentalists have a few names to choose from:
Enviros, tree huggers, ecologists, rainbow warriors, eco-nuts, eco-freaks, communists, greenies, secular humanists, deep ecologists, luddites and FBI’s most wanted to name a few.
I like “Greens” as in “Green Party” even if I vote for Obama.
Daniel David,
what’s with wrong with green collar or the Green Party?
Going green…Don’t drop the justice!
I have no collar, I just wear t-shirts, cotton t-shirts, old cotton t-shirts, and cotton jeans, old cotton jeans, and my life is aimed at living green as much as is possible, but increasingly so.
No real green change will come from the top. Please don’t waste your vote on a dim or repug, or on ralph although he is a deserving man. Live green and vote green and change will grow from the bottom up. Elevate the Green Party. The sooner you do the sooner change will bubble up. Remember this, you may not get another chance.
Aargh. I telecommute. No car drivin’, no transit fillin’, no office bein’ heated and lit for me, no dry-cleanin’. Just a cable modem and a router that use 10W between them. How green would that make my collar, if I had one?
People who drive hybrid SUV’s alone to and from work everyday think they’re green. We’re all freaking doomed.
Would someone please put together a consortium of “Green” energy companies so we can support them by INVESTING in them?
This is certainly the time to do this…we all see the effects of our oil war, we all know the dangers of global warming and we all know that it will take more than the actions of just a few to fix the country.
AND we will soon have the money. Why not invest just 10% of the coming “stimulus package” check you will be receiving?
An actual chance to stimulate the American economy by helping to provide good jobs for many and an opportunity to take positive action to solve the energy issues the country faces.
More than 130 million households will be receiving a check. If everyone just invested $50.00 that would be over $6.5 Billion. A good start, and remember, an investment, not a gift or tax. Could be a great chance to get in the energy market for the future.
Big_Money:
Good for you. But the reality is that a very small percentage of workers have the good fortune to be able to telecommute, and that is largely out of individuals’ control, given the nature of work that needs to be done in societies, peoples’ lifetime skills and training, and the current business framework.
When people crow about the green lifestyles they’ve managed to attain, frankly, it often sounds like chiding, or even worse, smugness.
In a BBC survey done a couple years back if everyone in the world lived like an American it would take up to 3.8 worlds of the natural goods and resources to keep that life style. Last time I looked there was only one world.
Agree with some above it would take a huge change and it starts at home then the auto industry etc. It won’t happen as long as big business owns the people in the WH. We need a change in the political sysyem and we will never see that.
QUESTION?
How many readers use those Low E or floresent bulbs in the place they live or work?
Some coutries I have been in have done this and in some cases shut down 2 or 3 coal or nuke plants. Simple as screwing in a light bulb. So how many of you do this simple thing?
Green jobs don’t address the fundamental problem which is the outsourcing of jobs to cheap labor markets with no standards.
Anyone who believes that Chinese welders can’t fabricate windmills or that Chinese workers can’t assemble solar panels for 10 cents an hour is dreaming. Just because the jobs are green doesn’t mean they will stay here. Greed and the eternal quest for higher profits will drive those jobs overseas just as they have others before them.
Lobo Gris
Lobo, that can apply to any product. That is why you can buy an electric car in China, India, England and most of Europe for under 10,000$. Not that it is made in China there is a demand for them due to high gas prices. I would like to see a full time electric car company in NA before we see 3$ to 4$ a Litre or 12$ to 15.20$ a US gallon. People dream the economy here will keep running like it does in Europe at those prices. I don’t think it would. Give an electric car company the same breaks the big 3 and oil companies get then it is an even playing field. I like compressed air myself
www.theaircar.com
good luck-We use only CFLs in our home. The change in the KWH on our monthly bill was incredible. Same for when our fridge died and we bought an enrgy star one. I have heard arguments against the CFL due to the mercury in them (you cannot throw them in the garbage when they are done-you must return them to a store that sells them or to your municipality’s recycling center). If you compare apples to apples, the small amount of mercury in the bulbs is negligable compared to the increased amount of mercury in the air from coal burning power plants to power up the incandescents which burn off 90 % of their energy in heat loss.
There were two statements in the article that concerned me: first, that the expense of green energy will put a squeeze on the middle class; second, “Thank goodness that some people are trying to figure out how these changes can benefit people as well as the planet.” On the first one, good grief! Like the “middle class” isn’t getting squeezed flat by the expense of carbon-based energy. Yet people are willing to accept that, and the obscene profits of the providers of oil and coal, as inevitable and out of their control, while they fret about short-term higher costs of developing the alternatives that will, before long, save money. The huge propaganda campaign against solar, wind, tidal energy, etc., is the last-ditch effort of an industry that’s trying to get as much money as they can out of us before fuel supplies run out. And then what? Then they’re going to have to develop these technologies anyway, unless they actually bamboozle the public into believing that nuclear is a better way to go. On the second statement, man, that’s the whole problem. It isn’t people or the planet. We can’t exist without it, or even without it being a healthy planet. We and everything on this blue-green orb pitching through space and time are totally interconnected and interdependent. It’s not it or us. We are it. Jeeez, it’s like the old “it’s the loggers or the birds” mentality. Not only can we find a way to live sustainably and in harmony with our home, we have to.
yohocoma - smug it is, then. Beats getting smug about a pearly white Escalade, dontcha think? I know people in a huge range of occupations who have made the difficult switch to the easy life of telecommuting. Writers, editors, attorneys, notaries, IT geeks, researchers, PR people, designers, illustrators, planners, traders, brokers, accountants, and more. Sure we have to go to meetings now and again. But a lot of people could, and it is a quickly growing segment.
CFL’s and new fridges are a great help. Caulking the odd draft in your spare time is great, as well - the “low hanging fruit” of energy conservation. We have these AWESOME ads on public transit here in Toronto that show the Awesome Great Environmentalist David Suzuki looking all buff and sexy and wielding an enviably large caulking gun, and the caption “You have the Power”. I love it! Reducing waste comes in all flavours, and some are downright simple.
Earth Hour, anyone? It’s tomorrow at 8:00.
A good way to visualize the proflagrate energy waste in our daily lives, remember that one horsepower - the power that a healthy well-fed draft horse can produce for an extended period - is 745 watts.
So, that little hairdryer in your bathroom, is using the output of two horses. A clothes dryer, or central AC, about 4 horses. A average-sized refrigerator uses a half a horse, but it running 50% of the time every day.
Now, think of the impossible levels of oat production and manure removal that would be required to feed the entire stable of horses each typical middle class US home would require - and we’re not even talking about 20 horse - equivalents a car is using (on average) when running.
So, instead, we are effectively burning 250 milllion years worth of accumulated fossil “oats”. And the CO2 sequestered by these fossils are a critical component of the the earth’s mechanisms that have maintained a temperature which sustains life - counteracting the ever increasing solar output over the 550 million year history of complex life on earth. This is the “big picture” which is being missed. AGW goes way beyond just droughts and flooded coasts - we may be setting the stage for a premature end of all life on earth.
ladybug,
What’s wrong with green collar and Green Party is not their agendas or their goals. What’s wrong is the name “green”.
It’s dumbly uninclusive of so much of what progressives really want. “Green” as in more green plants on earth.
I know “kind” is not the right word either, but it can be extended as meaning kind to plantlife, kind to each other, kind to animals. Kindness is about peace, sharing, goodwill, responsibility, honesty and more. “Green” means
a color of plants implied as increasing by less pollution and less earth warming—any and everything else is a stretch. What does “green” mean for healthcare, for instance?
good luck March 28th, 2008 8:47 am
“Lobo, that can apply to any product.”
I agree, that was my point made rather obliquely.
As for energy I favor hydrogen for now. It can be extracted from sea water by electrolysis and every car on the road old or new can be converted to run on it for about $1000 per vehicle. The emissions, only water.
Lobo Gris
The best green jobs business plan you will ever read is at: http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/?bid=2&aid=CD1&opt=
The author should receive a Predidential Medal for his efforts - although certainly not from Bush.
Hot new jobs? Raising talapia, wormfarming and making cat tail marshes to treat sewage.
Lobo Gris March 28th, 2008 3:31 pm
Electrolysis of water to extract hydrogen is an energy-greedy business. And why when you start with electricity (presumably clean solar- or lunar-derived) do you not invest in electric cars instead of building electrolysis plants and the requisite distribution system?
Moreover, when you burn hydrogen in an internal combustion engine, you still produce oxides of nitrogen as well as water.
I wonder why external combustion engines (eg Stirling) do not appear to be in the frame for hybrids. They are not fussy as to fuel, burn more cleanly and are potentially much more efficient.