What is a "Green Job"?

[maddog]

How would you count them? Presumably, someone manufacturing wind turbines has a "green job", but what about the accountant who works for the wind turbine manufacturer?

What about electricians - are they green when working on "green projects", but not when working on regular, conventional, "non-green" projects? That question goes for just about any type of job, of course.

How about auto battery manufacturers - are they green if their batteries are going into a hybrid vehicle, but not if the batteries go into conventional gasoline engine cars? Even if they are the same batteries?

What about landscaping / gardeners / farmers - does it matter if they are organic? Are landscapers green? What if they use non-organic fertilizers, and mow using gas-engine lawnmowers?

I have also heard that "the source of the money" can be used as a determining factor, though I'm not recalling the example at the moment.

Any ideas?

[ZirconBlue]

My tak on it is that certain industries, businesses, or even specific locations are classified as "green", and then anyone working there is considered to have a "green job".

[drkitten]

How would you count them? Presumably, someone manufacturing wind turbines has a "green job", but what about the accountant who works for the wind turbine manufacturer?

Why are we trying to count them in the first place?

[YoPopa]

Why are we trying to count them in the first place?

Maybe because we are going to spend $2.8 billion on new ones (http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/08/news/economy/green_manufacturing_jobs/index.htm)?

It might be nice if someone could define what one is so we can get a rough idea at the end if we have 2.8 billion$ worth more of them.

Sad fact is that no one seems to know what one is and almost anyone can declare that what they are doing is green. Ideal fodder for a politician whose primary concern is doublespeak.

See the folks at Verterra Dinnerware (http://www.verterra.com). Price alone should be a clue to the waste of energy that these palm leaf plates are. In bulk these are going to cost you over $.60 each. for the 10" plates. Compare with Chinet plates at about $.12 each. A substantial part of the cost of any product is usually the energy that goes into the manufacture and distribution.

Even worse is the plastic packaging the Verterra come in. I buy the Chinet plates in the bulk pack (http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A15342991%2Cp_4%3AChinet&page=1) and they come in one lightweight plastic bag. My daughter in-law bought the Verterra plates and they came packed 8 plates in a heavy weight plastic. My guess is that the Verterra used almost 20 times the amount of plastic packaging per plate (even though it was a "bulk" purchase).

The claims of greenness for the Verterra include nothing that can't be said for the old fashioned Chinet paper plates. • Chemical-free • Non-toxic • Biodegradable • Sustainable • Renewable • Microwave-, oven-, and refrigerator-safe • Compostable

[bookitty]

Most of the time, "green" is tossed around like the word "natural." It's a feel-good word for people who want to care without having to actually do anything. No one denies that plastics, pollution and the casual destruction of the rain forests are bad, but they are fighting against any personal lifestyle changes.

However, there are industries whose products and manufacturing techniques are better for the environment or offer a less damaging solution. Like this development company that wants to produce solar power from panels in the roads using recycled materials and produced in a plant that gets power from a hydro-electric source.
http://www.solarroadways.com

If the funds for green jobs were put into companies like that, we could see results within the next 10-20 years. It is in our own best interest to support viable solutions and funding for future technologies. But the abuse of the word is already turning people against the idea.

[drkitten]

Maybe because we are going to spend $2.8 billion on new ones (http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/08/news/economy/green_manufacturing_jobs/index.htm)?

It might be nice if someone could define what one is so we can get a rough idea at the end if we have 2.8 billion$ worth more of them.

Not really. The proposals were evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which means that it's up to someone who wants the tax credits to explain how/why what they do is "green manufacturing."

Makes perfect sense to me. That is, in fact, how almost all government agencies give out their money for new projects. Rather than declaring up-front "these are the criteria we use, and anyone who fits the criteria gets money," they invite proposals and fund the ones with merit.


The claims of greenness for the Verterra include nothing that can't be said for the old fashioned Chinet paper plates. • Chemical-free • Non-toxic • Biodegradable • Sustainable • Renewable • Microwave-, oven-, and refrigerator-safe • Compostable

That is unfortunately not true. They explicitly claim that "Our environmentally-friendly plates, bowls and serving dishes are made only from two products: fallen leaves and water," a claim that Chinet can't make, since they almost certainly use wood pulp (which comes from [harvested] trees) and almost certainly use bleach as well. So in that sense, Verterra plates are greener than Chinet. As to whether or not this is a significant difference,.... well, I'd need more information about where the world's supply of wood pulp for paper plates comes from, and about what type of waste products are produced in standard paper plate manufacture, information that I don't have to hand, but that I'm sure Verterra would be happy to supply as part of the proposal for a tax credit.

... and if Verterra doesn't want to supply that information, they're not entitled as a matter of right to the tax credit, because there are certainly enough other companies putting together proposals.

[drkitten]

However, there are industries whose products and manufacturing techniques are better for the environment or offer a less damaging solution. Like this development company that wants to produce solar power from panels in the roads using recycled materials and produced in a plant that gets power from a hydro-electric source.
http://www.solarroadways.com

If the funds for green jobs were put into companies like that, we could see results within the next 10-20 years. It is in our own best interest to support viable solutions and funding for future technologies.

Sounds to me like Obama's doing the right thing. He called for proposals, got "500 applications from companies seeking a total of $7.6 billion in aid," and picked "183 projects in 43 states" to receive $2.3 billion. That's in the ballpark -- perhaps a little generous -- for any of the standard development grant projects. I think the NSF SBIR program has a slightly higher funding rate, most NSF programs have less.

What's the problem?

[maddog]

Why are we trying to count them in the first place?

Politics, of course. But I want to be able to determine accurate and meaningful data. Whatever method is eventually used will be fully disclosed, so it will be appropriately transparent, as far as I can do anything about it.

I wish I had a sockpuppet so I could post this anonymously, because I can't really discuss the details any further since it would be obvious which state I would be referring to.

So, let me just say that I have good reasons for asking the question and looking for serious, meaningful answers, and please leave it at that.

[drkitten]

Politics, of course. But I want to be able to determine accurate and meaningful data. Whatever method is eventually used will be fully disclosed, so it will be appropriately transparent, as far as I can do anything about it.

It won't be. Grant applications are routinely kept secret, as are the reviews of the applications, to preserve both the privacy of the business information presented in an application, and also to preserve the ability of the reviewers to give accurate and unbiased reviews. Even a FOIA request won't do you much good; you'd basically need a Federal court order to do anything about it.

Which makes sense. If I'm making a case for this kind of funding, I should need to present a long-term business plan about what I'm going to do with the funding. But that long-term business plan is exactly what I need a ironclad guarantee will not end up in my competitor's boardroom. If I have a new and promising technology for turning old shoes into diesel fuel, but I need $10 million in tax credits to fund the R&D, the last thing I need is to give the preliminary results to anyone else before I have done enough R&D to get a (patentable) product or process.


So, let me just say that I have good reasons for asking the question and looking for serious, meaningful answers, and please leave it at that.

It seems to me that you've been given one. A "green job" is whatever the applicant says it is. If the government review panel doesn't believe that the jobs mentioned in the application are green, the application will be denied (or only partly funded, covering the bits that the government review panel likes); if the government agrees, then the jobs are indeed considered "green."