The View From 1776

What’s A “Green” Job?

The Federal government has no definition for the supposedly green jobs on which it is spending hundreds of millions of dollars.  Inevitably malodorous pork will be viewed as a suitable target for green spending.


Read Byron York’s Billions for Green Jobs - Whatever They Are.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/16 at 12:26 AM
  1. There is no necessity for a green job definition any more than there is a need for a "medical" job definition. Many occupations have aspects that affect energy conservation and wise resource use. As the public becomes more aware of the need to diminish our reliance on oil, green aspects will become a natural part of every occupation.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/16  at  04:51 PM
  2. There is a need for a definition if you are budgeting money for "green jobs." Otherwise, it is too open for abuse.

    I wouldn't even use a term like "green." Why not use terms that are clearly defined, like "alternative fuels that replace oil," or that supply electricity or that reduce SO2 or NO2 emmissions or that do countless other things that have specific meaning and which can be used in determining how much money is allocated to each "green job."

    The term is too broad and too open to abuse.

    What if they are using it for CO2 reduction when we don't even know if it is a leading or lagging indicator and allowing people "trading" carbon credits to game the system for personal wealth building. Look how the farm subsidy congressmen funnel money to their own corporate farms. You can't trust our government even with well defined terms let alone terms like "green."
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  06/17  at  10:46 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.