Comments on: What are green jobs anyway?

By: Blaffergassted

Blaffergassted — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:39:08 +0000

Wots this then?

http://www.brucepower.com/pagecontent.aspx?navuid=1211&dtuid=83953

By: michael geller

michael geller — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:53:46 +0000

A better link to Miro’s documentary
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2009/carbonhunters/index.html

By: michael geller

michael geller — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:48:53 +0000

So on this topic, I’m giving the A+ to ‘grounded’. I hope I’ll read more of what he or she has to say on other topics.

On a somewhat related topic, if you didn’t see Miro Cernetig’s CBC documentary The Carbon Hunters, do check it out. It will astound, intrigue and disgust you.

http://celebedge.ca/ContentPosting_CP-Entertainment_new?newsitemid=202878723&feedname=CP-ENTERTAINMENT&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=False

By: Chris Keam

Chris Keam — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:54:48 +0000

Pretty sure I could make the cut. I may not be at the top of the heap, but I know the difference between chock and chalk, pique and peak, rein and reign, and a host of other brutal usage errors I see in print all the time.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

By: FBT

FBT — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:20:45 +0000

Chris,

If there were some kind of certification for journalists, I guess you’d be out of a job then wouldn’t you?

Be careful what you ask for.

By: Chris Keam

Chris Keam — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:51:05 +0000

BTW, it’s chock-full not chalk full. What would chalk full even mean? What was Frances saying about the proud tradition of journalists not requiring some kind of certification? Maybe it’s time to change that.

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19980122

By: Chris Keam

Chris Keam — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:20:35 +0000

I have the sneaking suspicion you’ll be playing the role of the Man of La Mancha in this wee drama Alex.

By: A. G. Tsakumis

A. G. Tsakumis — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:20:45 +0000

“They damage the credibility of three of four scientists…” yelps Monbiot.

What a fantastic lie! What those emails show is that some of the chief fluffers for the theories currently making Al Bore a billionaire, are chalk full of manipulated data and obfuscation. What those emails contain, is CLEAR evidence that the principle tenets are fraught with thick fabrication and intentional deceit. The very information contained therein is the very basis of the currently dissolving “Chicken Little” hypotheses being parlayed into doomsterism and apocalypse.

I do not expect alarmists to do anything more than offer drivel and sanctimony now that the Emperor is nude, but lying is a bit much, ladies.

The agnostic cries from Keam are as predictable as the churning of a Shanghal coal-burning plant, but to have someone offer Monbiot’s edict and make-believe that these emails are not significant is astounding.

You’re theocracy of turning the planet into one big hash-brownie bake-off, just went up in smoke.

And who did it? One of YOU! One of your OWN!

Keep tilting at those windmills, my darlings. The truth is emerging…finally.

By: MB

MB — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:52:48 +0000

You’re pretty grounded, Grounded.

I believe we’ll be searching for ways to make our cities, towns, homes and wheels more efficient through the persuasive economic force of higher energy prices and carbon priceing. It certainly won’t be happening through decisive leadership by our current decision makers. So it’s up to us to force them into decisive followership by leading the way from the ground up.

By: grounded

grounded — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:07:47 +0000

I find the opposition to the idea of ‘green’ jobs quite remarkable and it doesn’t make much sense. As far as I understand them they are basically jobs dedicated to producing renewable energy, increasing energy efficiency and reducing pollution associated with fossil fuel use. Some jobs require a lot of technical expertise (e.g. ‘positive energy’ building design) and others much less so (e.g. painting roofs white). Like most things in today’s marketplace they have been given a “green” label when in fact those jobs have been around for a long time. It’s kind of like Richard Florida’s efforts a few years ago to rebrand everybody with a bachelor’s degree as a member of the ‘creative class’. The difference I see with green jobs going forward is that demand for them will increase as businesses and governments continue to ramp up efficiency efforts and the substituting of renewables for fossil fuels. This will not happen overnight but it is already happening.
What I find strange is that people would be opposed to the idea of efforts to save and generate cleaner energy while improving air quality. One of the chief characteristics of renewables in cities is their localized nature (they can also be connected to a grid). The sewer heat recovery system at Southeast False Creek is a case in point. The same goes for the district energy systems installed in North Vancouver in 2004 and proposed in the Northeast False Creek development plan. Incidentally, many of these technologies are not new; for example, district energy has been around since ancient Rome’s famous heated baths.
Local energy production and efficiency also produce substantial operating cost savings for homeowners, businesses, institutions, etc and can improve their resale value. For example, the recent Empire State Building retrofit in NYC is expected to save its owners $4.4 million in energy costs annually and the EnerGuide rating scores are now being used in the marketing of homes in Ontario. This is without even getting into issues around declining fossil fuel supplies (http://tinyurl.com/q4mad5) in a world with growing demand for those resources (e.g. 2 billion+ people in India & China who want comparable standards of living as we have).
Financial savings, improved market valuation, an expanded local job base, cleaner air and some protection from volatile energy markets all seem like pretty positive aspects of green jobs to me. Will some green jobs or their technologies require subsidies? Certainly. We also subsidize oil and gas in this province in the form of ‘infrastructure credits’ and reduced royalty rates. We used to subsidize the film and video game industries too. Many countries (http://www.canada.com/news/national/Canada+spending+less+green+stimulus+projects+than+other+countries/2027862/story.html?id=2027862) are already on the green job bandwagon and if we don’t get on it too basically we lose because we’ll be buying their technologies and services from their companies in the future.
Finally, despite thinking that green jobs seem to be a pretty good addition to the existing job base I do have concerns (e.g. high land costs, few local supporting research institutions, lack of senior gov’t support) about whether Vancouver can make itself a viable place for green industry. Hopefully someone else in this great public room has some ideas about the viability part of it.