Talk:Green job/Archive 1

Archive 1

Info from new external link item should be incorporated into this article

I've just added Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources from Universidad Rey Juan Carlos as an external link item. Among other things, this study concludes from experience after implementing of a renewable energy policy Spain that each green job added destroyed 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy. I'm no expert in this area, and the study disclaims that it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience to a program in the U.S. but it seems to me that this should be given due weight in the article, Perhaps adding a section about the Spanish experience is a good way to do this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Net jobs

An edit unrelated to this popped this article up on my watchlist, and I happened to glance at the Net jobs section, which says, "A study by the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) at UC Berkeley found that adoption of renewable energy technologies leads to net job creation, even after jobs lost in fossil fuel and nuclear power industries are considered.", citing this supporting source.

The cited source does indeed say that (verbatim, on pages 9-10), but the source cited is a white paper published by Applied Materials, Inc., hawking their (then available -- see this) SunFab^TM manufacturing line. The study mentioned is this one. I haven't read it thoroughly, but quickly paging through it, I see "A key result emerges from our work: Across a broad range of scenarios, the renewable energy sector generates more jobs than the fossil fuel-based energy sector per unit of energy delivered (i.e., per average megawatt).", which isn't quite the same thing as net job creation.

Mentioned in the External Links section is this study, the executive summary of which is titled "Lessons from the Spanish Renewable Bubble", which says, in part, "... Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created. ... Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with exactitude to claim that the U.S. would lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “green jobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals the tendency that the U.S. should expect such an outcome."

I'm no expert on green jobs, but it looks to me as if this article needs a bit of work in the due weight area. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've just noticed that this is the second time I've raised the issue mentioned in the two sections above here. I've added a {{NPOV}} tag to the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made this edit to the article, attempting to add a bit of balance. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Types of jobs

Research has shown that many of the Green Jobs are paid activists. I would like this information to be included by someone who is closely connected with overseeing the grants. User:Dianne93101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

added a little international

I added a Canadian example - but most info is from US. --Bakerda (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

need help summarazing green jobs by country

I am only familiar with some ---US covered well-- but there are thousands of studies.Need help finding representative summary studies for all countries.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opalacathy33 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Feedback - GSI

Nice work developing this article from it's previous state. As discussed, organize it so it is not so "US-centric", and work on the Policy section organization. Great job!GAA8423 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Racial Inequality section...

The racial inequality section should be put into perspective and context. It should also use the correct tenses and seek more up-to-date information. Some of the references are from the 1990s, and a lot of the other stuff referenced in the article (the pathways out of poverty program, etc. etc.) with more recent references largely specifically targeted urban low-income populations which frequently consist of minorities. So, we should seek newer statistics on the effectiveness and impact of these programs on various demographics. Centerone (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for your advice Centerone. I'll definitely provide up-to-date information on the demographics section. I'll put the information that's dated into a historical subsection. Keep the tips coming. 
  Spence Defense (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Peer Review:

Hi Green Jobs group! First I’d like to say that your topic is so relevant to this day and age. We are lucky enough to witness a century in time in which a “green-collared” category has emerged, and documenting the history as well as the implementation of this emergence is very important. Your article already looks very well developed and organized - I only have a couple of pointers about the headers of your contents and small detail-change suggestions.

For your introduction, I think you should add a little more than the simple description of what green jobs are. For example, you could something like, “the emergence of green jobs is relatively recent and has been on the increase for *however many* years,” after the citation from the United Nations Environment Program.

Secondly, what exactly are net jobs? After reading the section titled “net jobs,” I’m still extremely unclear as to what net jobs mean and why they deserve a whole section to themselves. Perhaps you could combine half of this information into the introduction, or spread it out into different sections so the article could have a better flow.

My last pointer would be to spread your structure out in order to give the article a better flow, and in order to navigate the page with more easy. For example, “Green Jobs Net Growth/Shrinking under Trump Administration” could be entitled “Impacts of Trump Administration” instead, and have two different sections: one on growth, one on shrinking. *Also, your group did a great job at sounding extremely neutral, I found no biases and your tone was very professional and comprehensive.* Other than that, the rest of this article looks great and I can’t wait to see the finished result. Good luck! Ilonamantachian (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Ilona Mantachian, Saturday March 11th, 9:20pm

  Thanks for your review! We've updated the post based on your suggestions; however, not all of them was meet exactly as recommended; for instance, we changed "Green Jobs Net Growth/Shrinking under Trump 
  Administration" to just "Under Trump Administration" and added sections under other Presidents. Thanks once again, and please don't hesitate to provide us with any other suggestions if they come up.
  Spence Defense (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Impacts Under Trump Administration section

I have added a section on the Trump administration. Details are very much in flux so I would love extra citations (it is difficult to find sources other then news/media) I cited the 2018 budget blueprint heavily and remained unbiased.

thanks for all your input. Kadepercy (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC

Please don't. This is entirely speculative at this point. This is not yet worthy of inclusion in the article anymore than it would be worthy to add a similar section any any one of tens of thousands (if not millions) of different topics and aspects of life that the current administration's policy's could possible effectCenterone (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. If you look at the new budget plan there is significant cuts to the EPA and its staffing. I included quotes from high ranking trump admin. insiders who have voiced their desire to cut positions at the EPA which is a significant source of green jobs. I also added the sentence about how details are still in flux. We can definitively say that there will be cuts to green workforce but how drastic that cut will be is still uncertain and I made that clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadepercy (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you can't definitively say that, and it's entirely original research and speculation not worthy of inclusion in this article. Cutting the EPA doesn't necessarily directly affect green jobs. Heck, they could keep green jobs entirely intact and only cut certain oil regulations and inspection programs, etc. Centerone (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the cited material you will see that there is explicitly intent to cut staffing. I will rework my wording and repost it. Coupled with member of the trump administration's words it is definitely enough to include on this page. If you wish to edit the part about a net loss in green jobs you may definitely do so. But my content as a whole is well cited and is completely unbiased. Please feel free to edit and contribute but deleting a whole section is not productive. Thank you. Kadepercy (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is productive when the section and what you wrote shouldn't be in the article at all. Also, your content wasn't cited at all the first time. Some of your content doesn't directly relate to the subject at all.. and as you said everything is in flux. Simply re-adding your text with little to no changes is not productive. Centerone (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

First off thank you for helping making this page solid. I have cut quite a bit off the section to allow for objectivity and added citations. thanks again ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadepercy (talk • contribs) 20:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green job. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221120833/http://www.recovery.gov/ to http://www.recovery.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Relevant sections of Environmental job page merged with Green job page as per instructions from Wikipedia Administrator

Cheeka19  —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC) 

Wait, was there a call to merge the environmental jobs page with the green jobs page? Was it actually mentioned HERE previously? Because, I now see lots of junk on this page that ARE environmental jobs but AREN'T green jobs. Centerone (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Centerone yes, if you have a look at the environmental jobs page there was a consensus from editors that it should be merged with the green jobs page because environmental jobs and green jobs are one and the same thing. "Green jobs can also be termed sustainability jobs, eco jobs or environmental jobs." This RS wrote the book Environmental Careers in the 21st Century. Maybe check out his book and his article? Thanks Cheeka19

References