Move along, nothing to see here.

(cc) by-nc photo: Rainforest Action Network

 Millions of Jobs of a Different Collar

Last week The New York Times printed an article spotlighting the recent growth of “green-collar” jobs in the American economy. Everybody seems to like them:

Presidential candidates talk about the promise of “green collar” jobs – an economy with millions of workers installing solar panels, weatherizing homes, brewing biofuels, building hybrid cars and erecting giant wind turbines. Labor unions view these new jobs as replacements for positions lost to overseas manufacturing and outsourcing. Urban groups view training in green jobs as a route out of poverty. And environmentalists say they are crucial to combating climate change.*

Of course, every good news story must have controversy.

But some skeptics argue that the phrase “green jobs” is little more than a trendy term for politicians and others to bandy about. Some say they are not sure that these jobs will have the staying power to help solve the problems of the nation’s job market, and others note that green jobs often pay less than the old manufacturing jobs they are replacing.

“If you create jobs in wind power or ethanol,” he said, “that will take away jobs in other industries,” like building and operating conventional gas turbine power plants.

Mr. Ebell suggested that green jobs might not prove to be so great. “There will undoubtedly be a lot of jobs created in industries that are considered green or fashionable,” he said. “Some will last a long time, and some will go like the dot-coms.”

That seems like some rather asinine criticism. Mr. Ebell is essentially complaining that there will be good and bad jobs in an emergent industry. And…? There are also those opposed to state mandates for development of renewable resources, suggesting that we should “let the market decide”.

This kind of free market dogmatism suggests a naivety about the state of the market; industry inertia from the clout of politically entrenched oil, coal and utility companies is going to resist the development of renewable resources every step of the way.

Now I’m skeptical of the government’s ability to solve societal problems but I think that in this case the gains to the common good (both in a vague moralistic sense and in a more concrete economic sense) are too great to neglect provide incentives for this emerging industrial mode. And Mr. Ebell does bring up the point that we shouldn’t expect green jobs to be some kind of recession panacea but they certainly can’t hurt.

* incidentally, it seems the AP Stylebook now allows the word: “and” to come at the beginning of a sentence

(cc) by-nc-sa  photo: Simon King

As further evidence of the rising social consciousness of society, the Global Language Monitor (GLM), an organization that “documents, analyzes and tracks trends in language the world over”, has named “hybrid” the top word of 2007.

The GLM says:

The analysis was completed using GLM’s Predictive Quantities Indicator (PQI), the proprietary algorithm that tracks words and phrases in the media and on the Internet. The words are tracked in relation to frequency, contextual usage and appearance in global media outlets, factoring in long-term trends, short-term changes, momentum and velocity. GLM’s global network of language observers have nominated English-language words throughout the year from the world over.

So lots of people are using the word in many different contexts.  It’s interesting to note that “sustainable” was the top word of of 2006, though the GLM acknowledges that the word’s meaning has become muddled as it has become more widespread:

Originally a ‘green’ term, has moved into the mainstream meaning ‘self-generating’ as in ‘wind power is a sustainable power supply’. Can apply to populations, marriages, agriculture, economies, and the like. The opposite of ‘disposable’.

Still, rising visibility is a always good thing.  It will be interesting to see if this rising awareness eventually results in a corresponding backlash.

[via TreeHugger]

Lots of people are talking about Obama’s new ad, airing in Pennsylvania, that criticizes the record profits the oil companies are seeing while consumers are pinched at the pump. Most mainstream reports focus on the truth of the ad’s claims and rebuttals from the Clinton camp. More interesting are the ideas behind the message.

Obama singles out Exxon for making profits while consumers pay more … but doesn’t that make economic sense? If individuals pay more, the oil companies earn more. To take away these profits, to force them to pay “a penalty on windfall profits”, entails taxing private enterprise for doing well.

Or, reframed, the ad suggests an interventionist orientation that aims at furthering the common good and “lifting all boats” without tax cuts. It alludes to national interest without reference to military adventures in foreign lands.

Obama is treading awfully close to what many would decry as socialism, a designation equally reviled by the Right and the Left of late. It’s unusual to hear such talk from a mainstream political figure and it speaks to Obama’s political acumen (or his chronological serendipity) that he is able to advocate such ideas in a way that taps into a discontent felt across all ideological boundaries.

It will be interesting to see if such talk survives into the general election.

Here’s script for the ad, titled “Nothing’s Changed”:

Since the gas lines of the ’70′s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed – except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.

I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.

I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.

Is Obama simply tapping into populist anger for electoral advantage or is he truly suggesting a radical reorientation in the approach our government takes towards promoting the public good? Do you think such such policies will ever make it past subcommittee limbo in Congress?

Much of the early media attention garnered by No Sweat Apparel focused on their sneakers. Their flagship product, call them Converse knock-offs or an improvement on existing trends, they brought in a large part of the company’s revenue. Despite this, supply has dried up and it has been this way for the last year and a half. Most sizes are out of stock in No Sweat’s online store and good luck finding some in your size elsewhere on the ‘net. After an intensive search and more than a little good fortune, I was able to procure a pair and I can attest to their high quality manufacture. So, what’s up? Where have all the sneakers gone?

Prior to the shortage, the sneakers were produced at PT Sepatu Bata TBK, a union shop in Jakarta, Indonesia. Conditions were good enough to pass muster with No Sweat. Workers earned move than minimum wage and received a variety of additional benefits. Things seemed good. Then, according to CEO Adam Neiman, an unfortunate mixture of union politics, conflicting interests and local history brought No Sweat’s relationship with the factory to an end.

A bit of Indonesian history is in order to fully understand the situation. Suharto was the authoritarian “president” of Indonesia from 1967 to 1998 and virulently anti-communist (see here for a brief history of his rise to power). The union at the Bata factory, the SPSI-TSK, is historically anti-communist, with past ties to the Suharto regime. Most Indonesian unions were and still are Red in some fashion and this difference in orientation has understandably resulted in bad blood between the SPSI-TSK and other unions. Understandably so, given the violent repression the Communists saw under Suharto.

The audit

In order to verify that conditions at the Bata factory were to their liking, No Sweat arranged for an independent auditor to come in and survey the plant. The auditors came back with a report raising a variety of concerns regarding wages, overtime pay and the process required to request leave. However the nature of the report was rendered suspect when it was discovered that the head of the audit team was also the head of a rival union and had a history with the union boss of the SPSI-TSK.

Because a truly independent audit was never completed, reservations resulting from anecdotal reports regarding workplace conditions still remained. In a letter to Fair Wear (an Australian labor rights campaign) No Sweat concludes that while the Bata factory is certainly no sweatshop, there are unresolved questions regarding the democratic nature of the union and overall worker satisfaction with working conditions. The biased nature of the audit and the replacement of a cooperative factory directory with a company man who viewed the position as just another placement made verification of the aforementioned concerns problematic, to say the least.

Present situation

Communication between No Sweat and the various representatives at the Bata factory slowly deteriorated and the decision was made to cease sourcing from PT Sepatu Bata TBK. Right now the company is in talks with recuperated factories in Argentina but things can be slow going. Adam (Neiman) laughingly related to me that it can be difficult for the workers to provide samples when they occasionally have to break into their factory to provide them.

I hope sourcing from Argentina works out. It would be exciting for the recuperated sectors of industry to mature from necessary developments of desperation to prosperous, viable alternatives. So often when one criticizes to state of capitalism today, the response is: “well then show me an alternative“. I believe that the worked-owned factories of Argentina and the ethics of No Sweat go a long way towards providing that alternative, despite the obstacles in their way.

Primary documents regarding the “Bata business” can be found: here.

I also admit that my understanding of some of the facts may be incorrect, feel free to correct me in the comments.

A decade ago, the term “eco-friendly accommodation” usually meant snuggling up under a thick quilt at a chilly mountain lodge, eating vegetables from the owner’s garden and recycling your trash before hitting the nearby nature trails. Now the term is increasingly becoming compatible with both “luxury” and “cities,” as more chain and boutique hotels — with views of skyscrapers not trees — incorporate sustainable green practices into their policies.

An Eco-Trend Moves Out of the Wilderness relates the growing prevalence of sustainable practices in the hotel industry. While it may seem silly to get excited about greener hotels, in and of themselves a relative luxury, ecologically friendly policies like the ones detailed in the article are going to have to continue their movement from niche to mainstream if there is going to be any global impact.

Not just green, but sensible

Labeling the practices detailed in the article — linen and towel re-use, travel via public transport (in this case, by gondola) and use of solar energy — as primarily environmentally-minded seems needlessly value-laden. One could easily reframe green policies as simply sensible policies. Being “green” generally entails using less energy and relying upon local resources. Consider a counter-example wherein people are encouraged to expend as much energy as possible and to rely solely upon a limited supply of fossil fuels whose use requires an unwieldy transport infrastructure and whose supply depends upon the whims of some of the least democratically-minded nations in the world.

Who washes their towels after every shower when at home? Why has this practice become commonplace in American hotels? When compared to the alternative, linen re-use just seems sensible. Adjustment to sustainable practices may simply mean a reduction of our inflated standards of living and an inclination towards wise use of our resources, instead of pretending that we leave in a magical world where everything is available in an unlimited supply. Many of the inexpensive goods we use are only artificially cheap, through government subsidies or truly exploitation labor practices. It is about time that we woke up to this fact.

Economical and sustainable

A commenter on the New York Times site remarks that when they have encountered green practices at hotels in the past, they assumed they were there “because the hotels were cost cutting … there is a difference between a hotel going green, and simply cutting back on services (even if the outcome is the same)”. I disagree. I question the necessity of drawing a distinction between resource-conservation techniques with an environmental versus an economic intent. Such a delineation suggests a purist perspective on sustainable policies; “you have to have the proper intention or it doesn’t count!”

Why can’t the environmental and the economic benefits of sustainable practices be different sides of the same coin? It makes sense. The concept of sustainability is centered around utilization of less-resource intensive, more local means. Less resources translates into reduced costs and utilizing local resources entails less energy for transportation. They aren’t mutually exclusive outcomes and indeed, this may be one of the most persuasive reasons to adopt a greener mindset.

Does it matter if green policies are used as a selling point or if commercial businesses are putting them into practice only to cut costs? The more widespread such practices are the more they enter into mainstream thought and become acceptable instead of just “something those hippies do”. The net result remains positive.

What do you think? Greenwashing is one thing, but does it matter whether environmentally friendly business practices are being adopted honestly or only to save a buck? Can it result in meaningful societal change? Will green business practices translate into ecologically mindful behavior? If the sustainable trend remains sustainable, I believe it will have a positive impact. To some extent it will have to be or we are going to be in a tough spot.

I hate being sticky. I hate being sticky and I am laying on my back on the floor, my naked chest covered in cheap syrupy lube whose original purpose was not this one, because as much as I hate the feeling of liquid silicone accumulating in my belly button, I love Dov Charney more.

Technorati Tags: american apparel

“Their Carhartts are no longer ironic. Now they have real dirt on them. … Steeped in years of talk around college campuses and in stylish urban enclaves about the evils of factory farms (see the E. coli spinach outbreaks), the perils of relying on petroleum to deliver food over long distances (see global warming) and the beauty of greenmarkets (see the four-times-weekly locavore cornucopia in Union Square), some young urbanites are starting to put their muscles where their pro-environment, antiglobalization mouths are. They are creating small-scale farms near urban areas hungry for quality produce and willing to pay a premium.”

Thus begins an article in today’s New York Times detailing the recent trend (fashion?) of sustainably-minded urbanites heading for the hills to farm. It’s interesting that the piece was placed in the Fashion & Style section, as though the editors pegged it as belonging somewhere in between hard news and human interest and weren’t sure where to put it.

More interesting are the vaguely condescending undertones in the article. Hasn’t the author read the handbook? He’s mixing archetypes. It’s blue-collar hipsters who wear trucker hats and college-educated hipsters who care about current affairs. Two entirely different categories.

Some of the flippant descriptions make it seem as though the author is attempting to suggest that these green farmers, born into privilege, are somehow less authentic because of it. As though the author expects them to give up at any moment.

Perhaps, then, the article’s placement in the style section isn’t so odd after all.

I wonder if this trend has any parallel outside of regions “near urban areas hungry for quality produce and willing to pay a premium”. It’d be interesting track these kinds of changes away from what has become traditional, American, large-scale agribusiness. One can only hope.

Of further interest is a documentary on the growth of young, green-minded farmers linked in the above article: http://www.thegreenhorns.net/home.html

Technorati Tags: green, news

My disinclination to keep up with the headlines comes from a variety of different sources but it’s mainly that I never feel like I really know what’s going on.

Or, to be more precise, I never feel as though I know enough history to really know what is going on. Of course this may stem from the nature of the news coverage itself; journalists are honor-bound to provide the five ‘W’s but hitting the high points necessarily omits important contextual information. We rarely hear what has come before and where the major players have been before. (Note, for example, the interesting fact that Rumsfeld and Cheney both served under Ford (as Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff respectively). See here & here for photos of their stunning younger selves). This tidbit can provide us some insight into their attitudes towards government and foreign policy (that is, it would if I knew anything about the Ford administration).

Instead everything comes as a disconnected stream events with no correlation between them. Feeling out the overlapping relationships requires a level of attention that is difficult to maintain for someone with divided attentions … but perhaps I complain too much.

I imagine that eventually the patterns begin to make sense. I once had a professor who has worked with Jesse Jackson since forever. In class he would name-drop campaign advisors and party strategists, describing how they came up again and again in prominent positions in government. It is these kinds of people, unknown to the public at large, who are best able to influence public policy largely outside of the media spotlight. Keeping an eye on those kinds of forces is always key to understanding where policy has been and where it is going.

Ultimately, I suppose a level of uncertainty is good. It keeps fresh one’s hunger for knowledge and introduces a healthy level of doubt into one’s political polemics. Dogma is rarely productive. There should always be room for growth and change.

Technorati Tags: politics, news