9 thoughts on “Environmental Sustainability Is Not a Job Killer”
As noted, the big question to the poster is what they meant by “Sustainability.” Examples have been given for reasonable harvesting of natural resources. Pollution control does not need to be economically devastating. Back in the ’60’s plating lines would just dump their heavy metal waste baths into the rivers. Then someone figured out that you could actually sell the stuff (especially the gold, silver, etc.) So companies started treating their waste so that they could actually make money on it. No jobs lost their and even a few created. Now most regulations don’t provide a profit, but the article only asked for an example, not a trend.
Sustainability is a stupid marketing term, along with renewable, that is used to trick clueless people into thinking they are helping the planet. I don’t know if it’s tied to Agenda 21, but it certainly is the most effective way to get people to buy something. If these consumers ever start actually thinking and asking questions, it’s over.
Howdy Ben
I think that’s what I said.
Geoff, there’s a difference between sustainability and “sustainability”. Managing forests and fish to keep good returns year after year is sustainability. It’s a necessary idea if you don’t want things to crash and burn eventually.
However, “sustainability” is based on carbon balances and reliance on “renewable” electricity instead of fossil-based. That’s a completely different animal.
Sustainability is an operative word of Agenda 21 which is the program of the UN. It is amazing our elected servants can’t see what this is all about and get us out of the UN. Continuing to be the banker for the UN will lead to destruction of the US. The UN doesn’t have one program that benefits the US.
The subtitle on that srtie could have been “Reducing Wealth Creates Jobs.” As you say, though, real-world examples of this are, um, missing.
Many corporations cut costs and call it ‘sustainability’, and that’s for real. It’s a definite trend. Call anything ‘green’ if you can get away with it.
The result: Green is the new beige.
I offer you the American timber industry. As a body, it has recognized the importance of producing timber in order to sell it and the importance of protecting their lands in order to keep them productive. I note that we seem to have very few huge wildfires in private timber.
Or the farming and ranching industries. Same kind of thing. Oh, I know they’re accused of being “unsustainable” but the accusation is false.
Making other industries more efficient — more output for less input — is the real hallmark of sustainability, not whether the corporate HQ building cost twice as much to gain illusory environmental advantages. Many industries have greatly increased their sustainability but it was just called cost-cutting.
More Agenda 21 propaganda. The people who dream of controlling the population are those with no productive skills themselves, they just want to tell everyone else how to live. The EPA is our biggest job killer and economy killer, and “sustainability” will only prevent future generations from living as well as we do now.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
As noted, the big question to the poster is what they meant by “Sustainability.” Examples have been given for reasonable harvesting of natural resources. Pollution control does not need to be economically devastating. Back in the ’60’s plating lines would just dump their heavy metal waste baths into the rivers. Then someone figured out that you could actually sell the stuff (especially the gold, silver, etc.) So companies started treating their waste so that they could actually make money on it. No jobs lost their and even a few created. Now most regulations don’t provide a profit, but the article only asked for an example, not a trend.
Sustainability is a stupid marketing term, along with renewable, that is used to trick clueless people into thinking they are helping the planet. I don’t know if it’s tied to Agenda 21, but it certainly is the most effective way to get people to buy something. If these consumers ever start actually thinking and asking questions, it’s over.
Howdy Ben
I think that’s what I said.
Geoff, there’s a difference between sustainability and “sustainability”. Managing forests and fish to keep good returns year after year is sustainability. It’s a necessary idea if you don’t want things to crash and burn eventually.
However, “sustainability” is based on carbon balances and reliance on “renewable” electricity instead of fossil-based. That’s a completely different animal.
Sustainability is an operative word of Agenda 21 which is the program of the UN. It is amazing our elected servants can’t see what this is all about and get us out of the UN. Continuing to be the banker for the UN will lead to destruction of the US. The UN doesn’t have one program that benefits the US.
The subtitle on that srtie could have been “Reducing Wealth Creates Jobs.” As you say, though, real-world examples of this are, um, missing.
Many corporations cut costs and call it ‘sustainability’, and that’s for real. It’s a definite trend. Call anything ‘green’ if you can get away with it.
The result: Green is the new beige.
I offer you the American timber industry. As a body, it has recognized the importance of producing timber in order to sell it and the importance of protecting their lands in order to keep them productive. I note that we seem to have very few huge wildfires in private timber.
Or the farming and ranching industries. Same kind of thing. Oh, I know they’re accused of being “unsustainable” but the accusation is false.
Making other industries more efficient — more output for less input — is the real hallmark of sustainability, not whether the corporate HQ building cost twice as much to gain illusory environmental advantages. Many industries have greatly increased their sustainability but it was just called cost-cutting.
More Agenda 21 propaganda. The people who dream of controlling the population are those with no productive skills themselves, they just want to tell everyone else how to live. The EPA is our biggest job killer and economy killer, and “sustainability” will only prevent future generations from living as well as we do now.