The US Green Jobs Debate and Climate Change: Two Sides, Same Coin

Climate change is crucial to the debate whether green jobs exist; it might as well be the same debate. As mentioned on Justmeans, the US stands to lose nearly half a trillion dollars a year if climate change continues unmitigated and follows the path of business as usual. Costs accrue via: losses in biodiversity, economic spillovers, national security, public health, and migration. Other countries project similarly proportional losses if not much worse. Although President Obama has pledged an American green economy promising green jobs, there are many opponents to the idea. Opponents to green jobs more closely resemble climate change skeptics. As we'll soon see, opposing green jobs as a solution is the same as opposing climate change as a real problem.

Proponents of Green Jobs: at the heart of any useful argument for green jobs is the need to counteract the effects of global climate change. Without the understanding of the adverse effects of carbon emissions produced by fossil fuel use, there cannot be an understanding of green jobs and the sustainability they would provide. Moreover, if the findings of the IPCC IV (2007) Report would be reversed and climate change was not occurring then there would not be any need for investment into green jobs in: renewable energies, energy efficiency, and efficient transportation. The truth, however, is that predicted adverse effects are increasing their rate of occurrence.

Opponents of Green Jobs: the arguments against green jobs, on the other hand, craftily steer away from the term 'climate change,'like yachts avoiding oceanic icebergs. The Morris et al. (Green Jobs Myths, 2009) report only mentions the term "climate change" three times in ninety pages. By side stepping the elephant in the room, the authors centered their argument around much smaller details: the definition of 'green jobs', study methodologies, and accusations of conspiracy to enable worldwide economic upheaval in the guise of being anti-fossil fuel. By spotlighting minor facts, the opponents of green jobs attempt to draw attention away from the larger problem: climate change. This strategy is both mediocre and irresponsible, but it's the only strategy opponents of green jobs/green economy have. Sadly, it may prove to be effective in stopping US climate change legislation.

The problem is climate change, and the solutions are green jobs and the green economy. The heated debate may cause tempers to flare and heart rates to jump, but there is no need to worry about the consequences of establishing a green economy at the cost of putting millions of Americans out of jobs. The social and economic upheaval that opponents warn against is largely uncalled for and rather amusing. There will be a shake up, but people won't lose their value or their valuable skills; they'll simply shift into a similar position working on projects and services that aim to limit carbon emissions. Jobs will need to shift away from dirty fuels into clean tech and services- a sustainable move that's good for the environment and good for the economy.

Photo Credit: Flickr