Free copies of Van Jones's "The Green Economy" -- HOWTO create sustainable green jobs
I met Van Jones in 2007 -- a community organizer and campaigning civil rights lawyer from Oakland -- and he was on fire with his new plan: to create "green collar" jobs that would put real, sustainable work in the grasp of people whose lives were being destroyed by the death of America's manufacturing sector. He had a really good, crunchy pitch, filled with credible stats about the efficiency of spending on green job creation -- and he also had a well-thought-through logistical plan for getting there.
Now Van's published a book on the subject, The Green Economy and now he's offering ten free copies to Boing Boing readers, through the link below (the form will stop working once ten people have signed up -- they're not harvesting addresses). Of course, you can also just buy a copy, or check out the videos of Van speaking,
The Green Economy on Amazon, Free copies of The Green Economy, Van Jones on GFA America, Van Jones: It's Simple
the latest
latest episodes
Free copies all gone already :-(
i got one! are they going to confirm through email or anything?
Coincidently, I just yesterday added my name to a 25+ person waiting list to check this book out from my local library. Mr. Jones and others in the green jobs/environmental justice movement have an amazing vision that seems to also be incredibly effective (imagine that?).
This guy seems pretty hackish to me. He's got the Clinton 'thumb point' NLP move down.
All that aside, what I don't quite understand is where the money for these giant make-work programs is going to come from and how owners of private property will be motivated to make these changes on their properties; Are we really talking about new policy regulations that compel owners to comply? - That seems to me to be the only way such a program would assuredly "work". Are we really talking about assuming billions/trillions in debt in order to initiate these programs? - How can we expect broke Americans to "buy" such services?
Sounds to me like we're being welcomed to the Technocracy; building greener ghettoes since 2010.
If it's so green - why is it on paper...?
I saw this guy in Philadelphia. Very inspirational talk.
The mayor (Nutter) opened up for him and said he wanted to make Philly "the greenest city in the US."
Lofty, admirable goal, but now we're closing fire houses and libraries because our budget sucks so hard.
Apparently multiple billions of federal money will be needed. This from the promo web site:
__
Van is also a co-founder of a new national coalition that promotes the idea of a national "Clean Energy Jobs Corps." This multi-billion-dollar federal initiative would put hundreds of thousands of people to work rewiring and retrofitting the energy infrastructure of the United States.
__
I am concerned about the way that federal money has excited a feeding frenzy, and not just among banksters and car companies. If there really is such a thing as a "green economy," why won't venture capitalists fund it?
Uland, why did you characterize green jobs as "make work"?
I won't pay people to do things in unsustainable ways. So there are hundreds of thousands of products that I simply don't buy, and others that I pay extra for - like organically raised local produce, for example.
Thanks, Frank - your rant makes me proud to be an American (who is not like you)...
Rotting or burning wood releases biologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere.
Making lasting things out of wood sequesters carbon. This includes books (unless you regularly burn yours) although it does not include all paper products. Double whammy if the wood was deadfall or sustainably harvested.
Books are greener than fossil-fuel-powered electrons.
--Charlie
Well, Frank, how about some specifics? Like, where are you, and what green technology in your part of the world "pays for itself" in the long term without subsidies?
As for "double windowpanes" you seem unaware that at this time, in the US, it is pretty much impossible to buy anything else. Are you also unaware that every US water heater has its energy efficiency stated on it, on a label?
Maybe fact checking would be helpful before ranting?
Our local community radio stations has been playing a series from his talks, as well as lectures from others. I love his enthusiasm, and his willingness to just flat out point out what a disaster industrialism can be, and is at times. I wish him luck in getting something done.
"community organizer"
This kind of says it all, doesn't it?
Snake oil.
JAMESMASON, I'm not sure what you mean by your comment #13.
Please explain.
I agree with CHARLESPLATT.
And to add, where do government subsidies orginate? Out of the taxpayer's pockets.
So why not stop taxing all of us to death and beyond and let us save our money to retrofit our own homes. Much better solution and less costly for everyone.
Too bad it doesn't fit in with most governmental bureaucracies anywhere in the world.
Van is AMAZING in person. We got to meet and talk personally with him in Oakland. Very inspiring. It's not snake oil. All his observations seem very clear headed and simple to implement. He just needs to organize a big enough group of people to move in the right direction, and he seems to be doing a very good job of it.
@ 4 - Check out the book "Cradle to Cradle" -- printed in book format, but not made out of tree pulp -- designed to last longer than pulp based books, waterproof, and, when it's life does come to an end, can be up-cycled into another book.
It'd be nice if Van's book utilized the same technologies.
http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm
Ito- It isn't that the jobs are "green" ( still not sure what that really means, when it comes down to it.) that makes them "make-work" jobs, it's that they'd have to Federally/State funded, meaning everything we paid out would be more debt. We're talking about a monolithic project, probably in the trillions; anything we might "save" in energy costs would be far outdone by the debt we would incur and the concomitant reduction in real earnings/available cash- and that's if our currency maintains relative value throughout that dynamic, which is nigh on impossible.
Regardless of our respective takes on the reality of any "environmental crisis" or our takes on why energy is so expensive right now, I think it's okay to be skeptical of a character like this, who seems to get trotted out via various NGO/Foundation efforts to prime the public.
In other words, you might think something needs to be done about energy/environment, but we don't have to agree with anyone who is presented as having "expertise" simply because he/she shares those concerns.
I think the argument for "how to fund green jobs" is usually by a) redirecting current subsidies away from traditional energy into more sustainable endeavors or b) capturing the cost of negative externalities created by non-sustainable industry and funding the projects that way.
Neither seem to be all that radical of ideas nor do they affect personal tax rates. Also, from what I've read about this as proposed by the UN a few months ago and I think its an excellent idea. I think the UN plan is much more focused on revamping institutional infrastructure (trans networks, large buildings, wind, etc.) to be more "green" rather than individual household efficiency. The canned libertarian/public choice response "If it's such a good idea why haven't entrepreneurs done it yet" has worn out its welcome, especially since it doesn't hold in the real world, for real people.
More public works nonsense. The only sustainable jobs are tied to services and products that the market (aka consumers) want. Propping up and establishing unsustainable markets is OK if you simply want to pump money into the economy, but don't call it anything other than a desperate attempt to stave off Depression.
#21 - "Public works nonsense", you know like interstate highways, railroads, telephone service to small towns, the postal service, and the Internet. Things that have all been directly subsidized by the the federal government and many times built by federal employees. All are examples of something that the market wouldn't fund because it isn't profitable, so it was built as a public good. Sounds less like "public works nonsense" and more like "critical economic infrastructure" to me. It's a myth that only the market creates socially desirable goods and services.
ABUSHAW is correct - when the economy goes down hill, that's when its time to start investing in public works rather than handing out cash to be frittered away on junk that noone needs. Sensible governments save when the going is good and spend when the times get tough. What they spend the money on is comparatively irrelevant from the point of view of stimulating the economy (visit Asian countries such as China and Japan that have been doing it tough for some time now - you finish digging that hole, just fill it up and start over again) but it is plain to see that the long term benefit of investing in energy efficiency, and in particular reducing greenhouse gas emissions, far out weighs that of further investment in 19th-century-style infrastructure. Unfortunately it seems America failed to save when times were good, which puts the country in a more difficult position than it should be, but even so, America remains one of the wealthiest countries in the world - i.e. the money is there for the spending.
Thank you for your clarifications, Uland!
PowellB - my comment indicates that I am a troll.
@#11 Charles:
"Well, Frank, how about some specifics? Like, where are you, and what green technology in your part of the world "pays for itself" in the long term without subsidies?
As for "double windowpanes" you seem unaware that at this time, in the US, it is pretty much impossible to buy anything else. Are you also unaware that every US water heater has its energy efficiency stated on it, on a label?
Maybe fact checking would be helpful before ranting?"
Want a 'green technology' that pays for itself? Here's an obvious one: recyclling aluminium.
Although double window panes are the norm for sale right now, the point is that there are a lot of single pane windows still in use. And yes, it is economically beneficial to replace existing single pane with new double or tri-pane. Maybe YOU should be the one doing fact checking.