Environmentalism and economic justice, sitting in a tree ...

Van Jones has helped push equity to the center of the green discussion

Posted by David Roberts at 11:32 AM on 26 Sep 2007

Read more about: politics | green jobs | environmental justice | business | Van Jones

Back in March of this year, I interviewed Van Jones of the Ella Baker Center in Oakland, Calif. He was excited because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had adopted his "green-collar jobs" language and agreed to craft legislation around it. In August, such legislation was introduced in the House.

Now things are taking off like crazy. Earlier this week the Senate Environment Committee held a hearing on green jobs, where Sen. Barbara Boxer brandished Jones' work and said, "we still have a chance to avoid the worst effects of global warming and in doing so, we will also strengthen our economy and create good jobs for millions of Americans."

Today, on stage at the Clinton Global Initiative, Jones announced the formation of a new campaign, Green for All:

Green for All has a simple but ambitious mission: to help build a green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty. By advocating for a national commitment to job training, employment and entrepreneurial opportunities in the emerging green economy -- especially for people from disadvantaged communities -- this campaign simultaneously fights both poverty and pollution. Green For All is committed to securing one billion dollars by 2012 to create "green pathways out of poverty" for 250,000 people in the United States, by greatly expanding federal government and private sector commitments to "green-collar" jobs.

Jones explained to me that as interest in the overlap of green growth and social justice grows, he's trying to push the boundaries. Now we've gone from $250K for job training for lower middle class folks to a billion, aimed squarely at those in poverty.

On Friday, Jones is going to give the keynote speech at a large climate change rally in D.C. and then appear on a climate change panel with Barack Obama before the Congressional Black Caucus.

And that's just scratching the surface -- just this week he's landed a book deal, met Bolivian President Evo Morales and NYT columnist Tom Friedman, spoken to foundation boards and a host of media outlets, and on and on.

In the space of under a year, the concept of green-collar jobs -- lifting the poor and disadvantaged up with the new green economy -- has gone from the political fringes squarely into the mainstream, with the backing of virtually every high-profile Democratic politician. That success is due in no small part to Jones' tireless efforts.

We'll be hearing from Jones next week on the subject of climate equity, along with some other people working in that area.

Economic justice is moving to the center of environmentalism, and vice versa. It's long overdue. Neither can succeed without a large, enduring political coalition, and together they are greater than the sum of their parts.

For story: Environmentalism and economic justice, sitting in a tree ...
4 Comments | Post a Comment

retraining

Jones and others are really onto something good. At the same time that we get on training an army of green collar workers, lots of grassroots groups are busy training the next generation of small farmers, which we're also going to need a lot more of in the future, if you believe folks like Richard Heinberg. The Farm School here in Mass, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute in Wis, and many others churn out new farmers all the time schooled in low input, high output ag.

I like the vision of these two armies marching in parallel toward a more livable future.

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

by Erik Hoffner at 12:03 PM on 26 Sep 2007

Curious

I think on the surface its an inspiring and necessary measure.

However, I am curious as what kinds of green collar jobs this campaign is calling for, who can get them, and how much of an environmental benefit the specific industries will be providing.

My concern is that it might turn into a huge subsidy for the construction, building, and manufacturing industries, which is one of the last things we need.

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

by iprefertherain at 10:18 AM on 27 Sep 2007

Van Jones

What could be bad about what Van Jones proposes? Nothing, except the lack of a definition of what he calls "green growth". Is this replacing "sustainable development" , which we all know meant sustaining the profits and survival of corporate America while appearing green. "Growth" in my dictionary means an increase: in extraction, production and consumption. But look where that brought us: depletion of resources, land and habitat; pollution; worker poisoning and displacement; loss of farms and community jobs; endangered species; and inequity, where the public paid the environmental and social costs and the rich got richer. Does "green growth" mean the USA will still consume a quarter of the world's energy and resources? Does it mean "Green Mansions", giant homes in the exurbs accessible only by car but loaded with solar cells ? And where is the rest of nature ? Why is solving the global warming crisis discussed only in technological and economic terms, as a materialist solution, when the profoundly ethical aspects of environmentalism - our relation to and responsibility for nonhuman species and systems - are markedly absent from the dialogue? Is progress only defined by solving one problem at a time with technology? And even if we bring socio-economic justice into our solutions, does this automatically bring an ecological sensibility and perspective? These are the unanswered questions that activists like Van Jones need to raise and attempt to answer. Progress and survival are more than economic stability, and black South Africans will testify to this as will all those who have struggled against tyranny and oppression. Often it appears as if our philosophical ancestors like Rachel Carson and Dave Brower, as well as John Muir and Henry David Thoreau never existed. Environmental activism must be inspired and imbued with an ecological ethics or our technological solutions will prove hollow and ultimatel futile.

Lorna Salzman

by lorna salzman at 12:03 PM on 27 Sep 2007

how to unite justices?

The doubts of IPreferTheRain and Lorna Salzman are welcome and necessary.

There is no disputing that social justice, in its many aspects, should absolutely be treated as a matter of the highest priority. But certain questions need to be asked, from the perspective of the deepest environmentalist traditions, of Van Jones and others who seem to suggest that there is never a conflict between the values of those working for the one cause and the values of those working for the other.

This bears comparison with the recent discussion in Gristmill of a PETA spokesman's assertion, to the effect that the cause of animal rights and the cause of opposition to global warming are two causes "sitting in a tree." As we have seen, many participants in that discussion seem personally to deplore the cruel treatment of animals, but refuse to allow that sentiment to affect how environmentalists interpret climate-science-related data.

It would be a very good thing indeed, if the spokespersons for the various issues touching on the meaning of justice in our society and the world should patiently and respectfully determine what values they share, and on the other hand how their respective emphases might divide them.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 12:44 PM on 27 Sep 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.