Where are the green jobs we desperately need? Where will they come from?
As we relentlessly cleave to our old ways, how and where will these alternatives arise? Instead of blindly reverting to an “old economy,” can we seriously consider “real action?”
If recent history is any indication, inertia and greed will corrupt, weaken, or reverse any promises of incremental change. Do we really understand the extent to which recycling isn’t working, or whether composting efforts should scale? Does anyone besides an activist really care?
Our government has money. It’s their only way to fuel an engine of change.
What should they spend it on?
Traditional projects simply result in opportunities to pollute. These “non-solutions” lead to nothing but potholes and decrepitude. Certainly, we need to fix roads and bridges—for safety alone—but what sustainability benefits do roads currently offer?
When COVID is finally “vaccinated,” we’ll need to rescue our public transportation systems from the pit of bankruptcy, but will public transport continue to function in the same way as before?
Should commuting remain the focus of a transit model, or should we transform office towers into something more sustainable, like affordable housing?
Should you shop anymore or does delivery cause less of an impact? Should you consume so much? Have you any conception of the consequences of your consumption? As we grapple with an economic catastrophe and global pandemic, we are answering none of these questions.
We barely even care.
We simply want to get back to “normal” and continue to pour our money into economic stopgaps and cement sinkholes, when we should consider carefully transitioning our infrastructure funding to solar and “green” energy—while fixing the grids and supply chains that support us along the way.
We can keep channeling money traditionally, in the hopes that the economic engine reignites—but what if it doesn’t? Are we simply meant to do less, and then starve? Is that the extent of our planning?
And, what if we get the economy “roaring” again? Do we wait for the next pandemic, or do we wait for an environmental disaster that is simply too big to ignore?
The sad truth is we will continue to do whatever we can get away with.
If reentering the Paris Accord satisfies anyone, then—“Whew!...we’re off that hook”— back to talking about jobs, infrastructure, and the economy. We can return to managing an endless global competition for resources, resulting in war, famine, and environmental disaster: the story of the world.
Does anyone really think China—or anyone else for that matter, beyond possibly the Europeans—is going to endorse a position of global cooperation, if competition for resources becomes inflamed?
Won’t authoritarian opportunists maximize their leverage at every turn, taking advantage of each conflict to highlight only what is being lost?
The only way out of this dilemma is sustainability that buoys everyone: green jobs, with a green purpose.
Responsible demand. Meeting basic societal needs, through flexible industries, that are able to produce within reason. Less arguing and more listening. A cradle-to-grave system for materials. An investment in the possibilities of peace, instead of “peace” through domination.
Yes, it’s a tall order, but it starts here.
Our government has to start spending and very quickly. Tell them what they should spend it on. Tell them now and tell them often.
Tell them in a way they can clearly hear and don’t stop telling them until the job is done.