Detroit's economy has been based on fossil fuels. That is OVER, and a new way is about to begin.Headlines today are more talk of recession. This New York Times article is based on more people are losing their jobs, something where Michigan has everyone beat. We have been called a "single state recession" for years, and the rest of the states are finally catching up. Good to take the lead from California in something.
So what does outsourcing jobs to another country where people work for far less money do for us? I think we are beginning to see the answer. And it isn't about losing more manufacturing jobs, but creating more. Clean jobs. Jobs that don't require a PhD but require hard work and belief in the company you work for. Jobs that you can invest in because they are an answer to sending the jobs overseas in countries that do not honor environmental health. Jennifer talks a good talk, but hasn't done a thing. Education is still number 50 for her. And as the NY Times says:
Government employment pulled the job market into negative territory, contracting by 18,000 jobs, mostly at state universities and community colleges.
Time to teach what green is and the ways to get there. Time to do rather than say. Definitely NOT the time to cut educational funding.
It is about doing what Nature needs, instead of what humans want. Time to stop conquering and living in peace with our world. Time to stop sending our war against the environment to other places and start creating jobs that are eco-friendly, "cradle to cradle" and balanced.
Those of us who still have jobs aren't doing much better, as prices continue to climb and our paychecks do not. As the article says, we are working longer hours and making less money. This isn't about a $600 stimulus package (wohoo!), this is about faith and the belief that there is another way and being brave to go there and lead the world once again, but not in raw, hubris filled power, but in doing the right thing, and rising above the fray.
Am I wrong?
Tell me what you think about working with the environment instead of against it . Tell me about the kinds of jobs we can create to change. Tell me about how geography plays an important role. Working WITH not against the places we inhabit. Let it start here.
14 comments:
First of all, that “cradle to cradle” video was really interesting.
If you want more demand for the eco-friendly industry then show people how they can get free electricity/water/heat for their homes by simply attaching a windmill and water collector to their roofs. It either needs to happen at the grass roots level (where people start wanting to jump off the grid) or at the governmental level (where the government starts giving tax benefits to eco friendly technologies and financial penalties to companies that pollute unnecessarily).
I think my answer to this question is to make every existing home in the county eco-friendly and make it so any built home has to have eco friendly elements. Then you’ll need jobs. You’ll need architects and construction workers to redesign hundreds of millions of homes, electricians (to manage personal windmills and solar collectors), hydro engineers and environmental scientists to help design and regulate how water can be pulled from the air to take stress off our groundwater reservoirs, and any other job that can help people perform maintenance on technologies of their new home.
Living in an eco-home will mean a constant awareness of how everyone’s life is directly influenced by the environment and then hopefully people will take it further from there.
Since our well being is determined by the sustinence that the earth provides you would think that people would make more of a concerted effort to take care of that which provides for them. This sadly is not the case.
If we want more eco-friendly jobs to be created then we are going to need a major government effort to make sure that there is a market for these jobs and that there is money to be made for the people working them. If the proliferation of eco-friednly technologies and products were nurtured then the potential market could be vast as well as the jobs they may produce. The employment oppurtunities would be as diverse as any job field available now; construction workers and managers, architects, electricians, lawyers, botanists, mathematicians, laborers, machine operators and the list could go on forever.
Living more intuned with the earth's natural state and co-existing with it as opposed to trying to conquer we all would benefit, food quality would be better and many diseases related to pollution would disappear, for example.
Each individual area of the world offers possible benefits of eco-friendly living and possible hardships when it comes to realizing this goal, but each has viable options to explore. When we view these hardships as obstacles to conquer and overcome is when the continued derision of our habitat occur and this will be to the detriment to us all.
So I was thinking about how you could get the government to implement a serious environmental stimulus plan. An idea like I posted above where I want everyone’s homes to undergo alteration would probably encounter serious opposition from the public because people don’t want the government telling them what to do with their property (even if it’s a good idea).
So I think the best thing to do is for the president to declare that pollution represents a “clear and present danger” to the national security of the United States. Much like the way Eisenhower was able to develop a national highway system on the basis that a lack of one would be a “clear and present danger” to the U.S. during wartime.
That would be a way to force it to happen and get around the debating and stonewalling that is a natural part of our government and society. Sometimes you just gotta take the bull by the horns… I wonder if Hillary or Obabma would have the guts to do that? …I bet Gore would.
I think the number one cause of our negativity towards the environment is that we are wasteful. We as Americans were brought up in a society with almost everything we wanted was at our disposal. For example I was brought up in a household where if you were brushing your teeth and you left the water running while you were doing so oh boy, pops wasn't happy, and he would let you know. This is something that has been sort of instilled in me from a young age not to waste. The reason I state this is because in my workplace I work with some of the most wasteful people I have ever seen.
I work in a small bank, only has 5 branches with 57 employees total. The reason these numbers are important is because to me this is a small company (physically). But, we go through cases upon cases of paper a week, I’m not talking like 3 or 4 cases I’m talking 10 or upwards. For example, we have to update and re-print new rates sheets every time the Feds' cut theirs or when we have to make minor adjustments. This happens 5-10 times a month. We print hundreds of sheets each time, and then as soon as the rates change they throw all of the other ones away. Just pitch em. IT might seem like nothing to a lot of people but reflecting back to my dad and what he said about wasting, it makes me think of what we are doing. I have suggested at work that we go "paperless". Instead of us mass printing rate sheets, why don’t we invest in some sort of touch screen technology? When a customer walks in, if they are interested in rates they can approach a terminal, select the rates they want to see, and if so print on demand. This would cut down on a tremendous amount of waste. The suggestion has been made, and then I have been told that we really don’t use that much paper or waste that much. Some people are just blind or oblivious to certain things, or maybe they are pinching their pennies and won’t get up off of a few dollars to in the long run save money and help the environment.
I know this example is sort of off of the topic question. But, I wanted people to see that even institutions such as a bank are wasteful and there is room across the board for everyone to become eco-friendly.
I believe that we do have to work with the environment in order for our state and our world to be successful. If we don't take care of, more and more problems are going to continue to arise.
I work at a grocery store and believe me, we waste a lot of materials. We throw away food that is still good, we don't recycle plastics or glass. The only thing we do do, is recycle cardboard. I think that the store could do so much more but choses not to do to costs and lawsuits. I have tried to talk to my managers, but they can't do anything unless corporate says that they can. If we would just add a recycle bin for plastics and glass, this would make a huge difference every week and less and less material would go to the land fills.
So my answer would be to separate "trash" more into what can and cannot be recycled. By doing so, less and less garbage would be sitting in our already full landfills and more and more materials could be reused. This might also help the ecomony because it would take a greater number of people to do this so more jobs would be created.
I think there are too many jobs asking for engineers or technologists since Michigan became an auto industrial state.
We might can create a job to study about the air pollution from the cars. We could study more about hydrogen engine so it will not damage the air in the world. If the hydrogen engine is too expensive, there might be another way to protect the environment.
One of the biggest obsticles to the U.S embracing eco-friendly industry isn't necessarily a lack of understanding of the damage we inflicting to our environment, but our biggest and best mentality. Sure there has been a great deal of backlash from the outsourcing of jobs, yet it continues because of the reasoning that companies and corporations must do so to stay competive and profitable in the global market.
Well the same arguement is made when it comes to us and the government going green. Why should we have to impliment emission standards and eco-friendly regulations on industry and building and so forth when our global competetors, namely China, do not. Many argue that it will be coastly and hurt our global econony. Despite the arguement that with US pressure to turn industris eco-friendly we can turn around pollution and bring jobs back stateside, there are too many who would be afraid of economic repercussions of such a proposal.
As I see it now, individual's purchasing power has driven the market somewhat towards embracing eco-friendly products. I think that we need to put pressure on our legislature to tie more and greater to going green, or to not going green.
The Toyota Prius has been the it hybrid to drive and own since debuted. Since then there have been various other hybrid and alternative engery vehicles that have been introduced to the car but none have been able to match the success of the Prius and just last year Honda announced that was ending it hybird models. Why did this happen? Prius is the symbol of hybrid, eco-friendly vechicles, it was the it car to have if you wanted to go, or be precieved as going green. Also the tax incentive on buying hybrid vehicles ran out after somemay were sold and that is about when other hybrid modles sales began to sharply drop off.
The point I am trying to articulate with that example is that we are receptive going green, and believe in all aspects of our living. However, we need incentive. Though we can see the impact industrial waste, gas emissions and our growing global population is having on the planet, we are also bombarded with economic concerns and fears. Measures from the legislature to inform people how to reduce their waste, national aid campaign for example, I believe people would be receptive too. Also, give us more and greater tax incentive! By learning how to become eco-friendly, in our individual lives and at the industrial level, we demonstrate to the next generation the eco-friendly behaviors and a green mindset.
Aleise Hagund
GEOG 320
Well getting to the point of the question I think that we as Michiganders are in the perfect position to take advantage of using our location to our advantage. In regards to working “with” the environment the Great Lakes serve as a great advantage when it comes to site and situation. The air currents off of the coast of the state could serve as good locations for the production of wind power. Michigan could serve as a model to other states as to how to conserve and manage a cradle to cradle system for the Lakes. With the problem of droughts and lack of water in many states the Great Lakes have been looked on to answer the call of others needs. Recently the federal government has lent a hand to the States to finance some large projects to conserve the Great Lakes. This money will not last forever if it is still available, so that is another area that the state could focus on. Although I am not sure if it will ever come into fruition, Granholm did speak on turning Michigan into one of the states with the top pool of tech students. With schools like Michigan State, Wayne State, University of Michigan and of course Eastern Michigan we have the foundation. Many places like Eastern Michigan have started the process with the building of Marshall which is trying to serve as an environmentally friendly building. (I don’t know how it measured with the LEED regulations) Another factor that puts Michigan first in this area is that we are holding on to one of the biggest industries that many fault as a huge contributor to global warming. So this should in turn put us in the forefront of any technology that is related to our industry. With the problems of the auto industry that are now occurring, the road is being paved for us to take a look out the window and see the future; a life after a gasoline powered world. With so much to lose we must incorporate as much as possible into being prepared for change so that we are not put in the predicament that we are in now. Although some steps have been taken I think that instead of moving full steam ahead with building Michigan as a techno pole, some of the other politicians of the state have decided that the key to Michigan’s revival is in the tourism field. Such ideas are good, but to truly be a power in the new world you have to do more than just follow the trends of other states, you have to lead them into the future.
It is hard to figure out jobs we can create when we can not hold onto the jobs we have. Michigan is a atatefilled with beauty that is slowly being stripped. We refuse to match emition standards california because of our auto industry dependancy, but this is and area that could not only create severl jobs but improve our enviroment. The problem is that it is hard to gain support for sustainably backed jobs because of public oppinion. Many people believe enviromental issuse are not their problem or that they do not want to put more tax money into these positions, or even that they are not going to be qualified to work the obs so why should they care. There really is no good anwser but hopefully there is some good solution to our single state recession.
Working with the environment is a GREAT way to go. There are so many jobs that could be created that don't require a college education, which we have a lot of. There are jobs cleaning, building, and for those that are well educated in becoming Green engineering is a great job. Good money. Our economy is going down the toliet and something needs to change. Maybe a change to going green could start up the economy once again. An investment which would benefit our state, country, and world drastically over time.
I'm not sure that taking the "lead from California" in state recession is such a good thing!
Working with the environment is not something that we really have a choice about. We NEED to work with the environment in order to keep, and establish more, jobs in our economy. If we do not work with the environment, we may not have much of an environment to work with soon!
It is appalling that we are seeing a cut in educational funding in order for Michigan to keep above water. We saw a job loss in January of 17,000. This decline in the workforce, or lowering of wages, is causing havoc on our state as well as our economy. The recession that we have found ourselves in has happened for a reason. We have seen the Michigan businesses and corporations leave the state because of our lack of support and our lack of design. We have to make changes in order to ensure that we are going to have jobs available to Michigan residents in the days to come. Our first step in order to "kill two birds with one stone" is to change the way we are living so that people can have jobs. We need to change the designs of our products, cities, industries, homes, and vehicles. We have seen that recycling has so many benefits, but it is not enough. We have to use the natural world in order to benefit and to rebuild our economy. It is true, we have so many resources in Michigan that we have not utilized to their fullest. From the Great Lakes to the Michigan forest, we have resources at our finger tips, and ready-made jobs to be had. If we begin to shed the light on the jobs that can be made by working with our environment, only positive things can come from it. If we are working with our environment and being eco-friendly, we are opening up jobs that will need to be filled by the educated individuals that we have to produce. I found the guidelines in the cradle-to-cradle article beneficial. 1)commitment to new paradigms 2) good growth instead of economic growth 3) continuous innovation 4) understanding in preparation for learning 5) implementation of intergenerational responsibility. These pretty much sum up the steps we need to take to be eco-friendly, which will in turn boost our economy, and pave the way for future generations.
Post a Comment