Creating Incentives for a Greener Planet

I really enjoyed reading the materials on Van Jones because his initiatives make sense on how to appeal to all sorts of different people about the importance of our environment, which gives me hope for the future. His theory on green-collared jobs really grabbed my attention because I have often wondered if it was common for workers to know how to "greenize" a building. Apparently, a lot of training is needed, but that's where legislation can come in to help fund the training of such jobs for low-income families.

It would be wonderful if Mr. Van Jones' actions continued to proliferate and green jobs could be available to those who needed them the most. What is so fascinating about this idea is that not only would there be more self-sufficient "green" buildings, but so many people would be learning new skills to help maintain our planet versus destroying it. Not to mention, it's a self-sustaining idea because if so many people learn this new trade, then they will be learning it in an eco-friendly context, so hopefully it would mean that the environment would become of greater importance to these people. In the end, making greener behavior a norm versus a trend just may decrease the costs of eco-friendly products, making people's choices towards the environment a lot easier.

Van Jones: Killing two birds with one stone

I really liked this article in the New York Times about Van Jones. He is a black environmentalist, which is somewhat unusual because the environmental movement has been labeled as an upper class problem, or activism. I think Jones frames it well when he says people in his neighborhood are more likely to get killed by a passing shooter than a glacier. Jones really puts the problem into perspective for me, as we truly do need more "on ramps" for the environmental problem.

I agree with Jones that one of the most important things the environmental movement needs to do is reach out to disadvantaged communities that may even be suffering from forms of environmental injustice, such as having a landfill close to their neighborhood. These people make choices as consumers on a daily basis, and while they may have a much harder time buying organic simply for monetary reasons, they need to be engaged in this battle.

I loved the idea of green collar jobs and I had never heard of them before. Jones is right. These jobs will have to stay in America and truly replace some blue collar jobs that have been lost overseas. With the growing environmental movement people are going to need buildings, parks and public spaces redone. This will create so many new jobs for people. I was so excited when I read this, although I do not think the government should be involved in everything, to combine two problems, the environment and poverty, into one solution is intriguing. I really hope these green collar jobs continue to go through and give people from these communities a reason to care about the environment. I really enjoyed this piece, and while Jones does seem climate change, etc. as a pressing problem, he really frames it into a positive light. He says here is the problem, here is how we can stop and fix it and here are some of the positive results that will occur. It is refreshing to hear someone who has a positive perspective, especially after reading The Lorax.

I will definitely continue to follow the issue of green jobs!

Green-Collar jobs = Greener planet?

I think the ideas Van Jones proposes are very intriguing. I think that it's a good idea to create jobs that will be available to disadvantaged youth in poor neighborhoods. Some may argue that it could possibly limit the potential of the people in these neighborhoods by having jobs that do not require a 4 year degree. I think that the idea is a good start because without such programs or initiatives, the teenagers in such neighborhoods may not even have the hope or desire to strive and finish high school. These programs give these teenagers something to look forward to and a world of more opportunities and possibilities. So, this plan helps disadvantaged teens and will help the environment.

The following line from the NY Times article really rings true: "You try that approach on people without jobs who live in neighborhoods where they’ve got a lot better chance of getting killed by a passing shooter than a melting glacier, you’re going to get nowhere — and without bringing America’s underclass into the green movement, it’s going to get nowhere, too." I think that the plan allows everyone to get involved. In order for real change to take place, everyone has to roll up their sleeves and get busy. Creating a green planet is obviously not an easy task, but with the right approach, we may be one step closer to achieving the goal. It's not surprising that the movement is growing because there are mutually beneficial results. I think these ideas are on the right track and this is a look into what the future holds.

Thoughts on the Van Jones' Movement to Prevent Climate Change

I liked how Mr. Jones is working to assimilate in our minds two disciplines that are all too often seen as distinct, though in fact they are inseparable: environment and economy. When I first started reading about Mr. Jones' movement, the thoughts that ran through my head were: "Oh, another let's focus on fixing the economy, but since we can, let's try and do something for the environment while we're at it." Thinking about it a little more, I understand that that is not the point of Mr. Jones' movement, but the past months of political campaigning have shown me that this is how far too much of American thinks: economy first, environment second. They do this because improving the economy provides (essentially) immediate material gain, while improving how we influence the environment is not quite so clear-cut. But my instinctual reaction to feel that movements to help the environment that come, for the most part, from political and economic drivers is also mistaken. However, proponents for the environmentalist movement should not disregard economic concerns in their own plans for the future. Current toadying for the economic system has failed the worlds ecosystems in ways that cannot be undone, but this does not mean that mankind should (or ever will) stop moving along the track of technical evolution it is currently pursuing. Therefore, as with Mr. Jones' proposal, a middle ground that will pursue human "progress" (with as much advantage to the environment as possible) is needed.

It seems to me that Mr. Jones is trying to frame the overwhelmingly large issue of climate change into a workable size. That is to say, he's avoiding doomsaying (oh, the world will end because we can't stop polluting ourselves) and is working to present climate change as something that can conceivably be worked on to some effect. Which is what is really needed in order for the movement to have any sizeable effect.