By Alanna Mackenzie

Renewable energy – energy that is constantly replenished through natural processes – has traditionally been overshadowed by its non-renewable counterparts in serving as a supplier for the world’s energy needs. However, as more and more research indicates that rising emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are responsible for the warming of the earth’s atmosphere, renewable energy sources are being increasingly turned towards as greener, more ethical alternatives for fueling homes, businesses and transportation. Combined with cleaner coal sources and nuclear technologies, renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower, could ideally cooperate in attempting to slow down climate change.

This transformation of technology for businesses and industries will likely cause a significant increase in power prices over the short term, and therefore may result in considerable consumer resistance. Most renewable technologies are more capital intensive, and have higher up-front costs, than conventional technologies, despite the fact that their long-term prices are generally quite stable and predictable.  Consumers will have to be educated about factors underlying these price increases, and accept the fact that they may have to change their behavior. Technology alone is inadequate without sufficiently effective policies, markets, and behavioral changes throughout both the developed and the developing world.

Major transformations of technology and infrastructure, will undoubtedly result in net costs to the economy and to energy users – however, that should not discourage people from desiring change. According to recent public opinion surveys on renewable energy use, a large portion of energy users in the U.S, the U.K. and Canada are willing to pay money in the form of higher taxes or prices to protect the environment.  Furthermore, a large percentage of these customers are strongly in favour of renewable energy use, as well as increased efficiency in non-renewable sectors.  These findings suggest the possibility of being optimistic about future energy trends.

Despite the advantageous properties of renewable sources, they do possess some significant shortcomings. Renewable energy utilities pay considerably more in property taxes and financing costs than fossil fuel companies do, owing to their status as fledgling industries to which relatively less investment interest has accrued.  Another strong argument against renewable energy is that they possess different operating characteristics than fossil fuels, and large-scale alterations to the electricity grid would be needed in order for them to be effective.  Renewable energy sources are also not 100% risk-free when it comes to the environment – for instance, hydroelectric dams have negative ecological impacts, toxic heavy metals are used in batteries for solar home systems, and wind farms may be detrimental to surrounding wildlife.  However, upon consideration of the risks associated with fossil fuels – rising carbon dioxide levels, urban smog and acid rain, pollution of water supplies, and human health complications – it becomes clear that renewable energy sources cannot be ignored, and must be somehow integrated into a future energy plan.

Already, there are many diverse government initiatives designed to encourage renewable energy use. For example, “net metering” is a policy which allows consumers who generate electricity from renewable technologies such as a rooftop solar panel or a small wind turbine, and feed any excess power back into the electricity system, thus causing their electricity meters to run backwards.  This policy makes investment in renewable technologies more cost-effective, stimulating renewable energy use among individual consumers. Tax incentives can also be extended to consumers, as a means of attracting them to energy-efficient products they wouldn’t be able to otherwise afford.

On a business level, production tax credit is a tool that promotes renewables by allows facility owners to receive tax credit, based on how much renewable energy they produce. Government subsidies are also a major way of encouraging renewable energy production. Energy subsidies, government funding that raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by consumers, account for approximately 0.7% of global GDP or $300 billion dollars per year.

Despite these initiatives, however, there are many obstacles to government support for renewable energy. For example, the government of Canada channels billions of dollars into “clean coal” projects, approves plants to transform coal into oil, and supports the development of fossil fuels through the tar sands.  Worldwide, fossil fuels remain the most heavily subsidized energy sources, a circumstance that acts to exacerbate climate change.  Lower end prices for fossil fuels can reduce incentives to conserve it, and exclude other, more promising technologies. If renewable energies are going to have the chance of competing with fossil fuels, their subsidies must be increased substantially, and current political support for coal and other conventional technologies must diminish.

This reality, that fossil fuels are so popular and heavily subsidized, combined with the fact that they are relatively cheap to produce, make it likely that they will remain unrivaled by other fuels in the near future.  However, renewables are becoming increasingly important, and their subsidies are steadily growing as a share of total energy subsidies.  According to the International Energy Agency, in 2030, about 13 times more energy from wind and 140 times more solar energy than current levels will be harvested globally. Already new renewable energy projects are springing up in Canada – Vancouver’s Olympic village, which heats some of its buildings with solar thermal energy, is a recent example. In the near future, UBC plans to launch North America’s first biomass-fueled heat-and-power generation system that will produce clean energy in abundance. However, much further government action is needed to stimulate renewable energy growth. Combined with consumer interest, and business cooperation, I believe that renewable energy can potentially make up a large enough portion of energy production to ensure a more sustainable future.

For those interested in careers in the renewable energy sector, here is a list of possible options (see http://www.greencollar.org/career.php for more information)

Solar Energy and Wind Energy Engineers
In the current green collar economy, the principle goal of Solar Energy and Wind Energy Engineers resides in the successful research, design, and development of machinery and systems for solar and wind energy capture, production, transmission, and distribution.

Solar Panel Electrician
The green collar industry is in dire need of those qualified and skilled Electricians who have experience of or specialize in the installation of solar panels required for energy generation. Also critical to the industry are those who possess the skills and knowledge necessary to recommend solar electrical systems, configure and install these systems, inspect and maintain them in way that meets the customers’ satisfaction. An ability to conform and keep current in regards to evolving industry standards for the performance, safety and reliability of solar electrical systems is especially vital.

Solar Panel Installers/Technicians
Workers in this unit group install and service a wide variety of interior and exterior prefabricated products such as windows, doors, electrical appliances, water heaters, fences, play structures and septic systems, at residential or commercial properties. They are employed by companies specializing in specific product installation and service.

Wind Technician
The Wind Technician is engaged in the maintenance, service, repair, and installation of wind turbine equipment and sub systems used in the operation of Wind plants.

By Anran Luo

Many environmentalists have suggested that in modern society there exists a dichotomy between nature and culture. The processes of the earth, phenomena that occur as a result of organic activities are generally defined as ‘natural’, while acts induced by human intelligence are referred to as ‘cultural.’ For example, photosynthesis, the process which green plants absorb sunlight to synthesize foods from carbon dioxide and water is a natural procedure, while the generation of electrical energy through the damming of a river or lake is an act of culture. The legacy of the separation between nature and culture is evident in our current environmental crises and debates.

How the environment is commonly perceived today can be traced back through time. In the West, common perceptions of Judeo-Christian beliefs, ancient Greek philosophy, as well as the Enlightenment movement in Europe, have all played influential roles in contributing to the nature vs. culture split.

In Genesis, the biblical creation story contains the following passage:

• And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

While there are different interpretations of this passage, the generally accepted definition is that humans were blessed with the will of God to do as we like with the environment and all that it contains.

Ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle perceived nature as a hierarchy where those with less ability to reason naturally submitted to those with more:

• Plants exist for the sake of animals, and brute beasts for the sake of man – domestic animals for his use and food…Since nature makes nothing purposeless or in vain, it is undeniably true that she has made all animals for the sake of man.

Thomas Aquinas, who dedicated his life of fusing Christian theology with Aristotle’s philosophies made a classification of sins in his major work, Summa Theologica. The compilation of sins included sins against God, ourselves and other humans, but excluded the possibility of sinning against non-humans or the environment.

The Enlightenment, known for its eradication of superstition and decreasing the power of the Church in Europe, did little to change human perceptions of nature and culture. In the early period of the movement, French philosopher René Descartes introduced his Cartesian concept, a method of reducing all problems to their constituent parts and then reordering them logically. In his work The Discourse on Method, he stated the Cogito Argument: “I think, therefore I exist.” This argument supported his idea that humans are unique from other species because we are the sole owners of what he refers to as the ‘rational soul.’ In more modern terms, humans have minds; we are self-aware, intelligent and have the ability to reason. Animals and other beings, on the contrary, are mindless machines; they are living matter. The separation of mind from matter was thus introduced. By association, the disconnection of rational humans from mindless entities in nature seemed logical.

The separation of nature and culture, rooted in and reinforced by thousands of years of Judeo-Christian, Greek and Cartesian philosophy, is unsustainable as it propels and fuels increasing environmental degradation. The disconnection of human-induced culture from nature offers justifications for human superiority, anthropocentrism, and the prioritization of not just human needs but human desires before necessities and livelihoods of other beings. Animals have been killed for the sake of fashion; ecosystems have been destroyed for the insatiable human demand for energy.

Culture has not been perceived as separate and superior to nature in all human traditions however. For example, Native Americans believe that all creatures are inter-related and believe that all natural beings, both living and nonliving, possess reason, volition, and spirituality. Although their primary goal was not environmental protection, their lifestyle caused less damage to the environment as a result of their belief that humans, a component of nature, depend on the prosperity of all other components to survive.

Will our perceptions be able to adapt to our current needs of sustainability and longevity? Or will thousands of years of perceiving nature and culture as opponents prevent us from seeing outside the box?

By Joseph Tohill

In the unrelenting drive to remain competitive in today’s economy, business executives are always looking for new ways to remain ahead of the curve and increase their profit margins. In particular, some realize that reductions can be made to their operating costs through the redesign of their old and inefficient buildings into new “green” buildings. The recent expansion in green buildings has led to the establishment of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, which awards buildings based on sustainability and energy conservation. Although the business community has long known the vast energy savings that can be made through LEED buildings, an often overlooked aspect is their potential to increase employee productivity.

The materials used in the construction of green buildings are non-toxic. This not only means they do less damage to the environment but that they emit fewer toxins to building inhabitants. For instance, we often find a “new car smell” in new automobiles, new floorings, recently purchased appliances, and other things that we add to our homes. This smell can last from a few weeks up to a few months. Throughout all this time, we are breathing in toxins that contribute to symptoms of headaches, nausea, and other sicknesses.

The materials used in green buildings do not emit toxins and therefore do not contaminate the air inhabitants breathe. Improved air circulation as a result of better spatial design and enhanced ventilation further purify indoor air. This creates healthy air quality for all occupants, resulting in happier and more productive workers.

Furthermore, green buildings encourage sustainable lighting plans which maximize the use of natural light to illuminate the inside. Successful lighting plans provide ideal lighting to workers and increase their exposure to the outside environment. Workers that have visual access to the outside environment and natural light from the sun are often in a better mood while at work which encourages higher productivity.

Air quality and lighting are just two of the many features of green buildings that improve worker productivity. Numerous reports have highlighted the enormous amount of money businesses save by improving the buildings that their workers occupy. And since employees’ salaries equate to roughly 90% of money flow through a building, this should be a big concern for company’s that want to maximize their use of human capital. The “Green Building Impact Report 2008,” released by Greener World Media, cited numerous studies that revealed productivity increases as high as 25%. This means that businesses that employ workers in green buildings already have a higher return on investment than businesses which do not. Therefore, businesses should also be aware of gains in worker productivity in addition to the direct savings in operating costs and energy efficiency.

The green building sector is a growing part of the economy that will continue to grow for years to come. Since the inception of the LEED rating system in 1998, there has been a growing demand in green buildings. Registrations in the construction of new LEED projects have increased to 30% of the market. The market for green buildings shows signs of increasing well into the future as businesses realize the huge benefits in LEED design. Workers in the construction or design sector would be well advised to hone their “green” talents, as the green building economy increasingly advances its share of the market. For those just starting out in the workforce or those looking for a change in careers, the time is ripe to cash in on the new wave of LEED buildings.

By: Paul Kleving

“Green” is the mass-marketed buzz word of the young decade, but are we losing touch with the true spirit of the word as it applies to sustainability? We are bombarded with images of leaves and trees on product packaging, we are told that certain companies are ‘family companies’, and we are asked to upgrade our current vehicles for newer, more fuel efficient hybrids. Do green leaves, family companies, or hybrids in themselves make for wise, sustainable, “green” lifestyle choices? Perhaps, but there is really only one way to know if your well intentioned decisions are truly beneficial to yourself, your community, or the world; do your homework. Reading the product label is possibly the single most impactive sustainable decision you could make on a daily basis. A major portion of our buying power is comprised of our daily purchases of nondurable or soft goods (goods with a lifespan of less than 3 years), while our largest purchases are usually durable goods and made to last many years. When considering your daily purchases it would be very difficult to make a truly informed decision, but reading the label for things like materials used, origin of the materials, origin of manufacture, and name of manufacturer will afford the consumer with a great amount of buying power. Difficulties arise because packaging may tell you about the product its self, but not about the company, for example, is the company a profuse polluter, do they pay fair wages to their employees, or do they source materials responsibly. For most people, in depth research would not fit their lifestyle, but reading the product label would. The first step to buying and living sustainably is being informed so that your decisions serve you in the way you want them to. Every time you make an informed sustainably minded decision you are casting a vote for a greener world, and your vote really does count. For a full list of Green Collar Association approved certifications and labels check out: http://www.greencollar.org/premium/homenew.php?company=Greencollar%20Labels%20List.

By: Victoria Biernacik

There’s been a lot of hustle and bustle surrounding the subject of the emerging green collar economy. Everyone wants to be involved, but finding experienced and skilled employees familiar with the hot topics can be a difficult pursuit. How does one prepare for this new path?

In order to get ready for green collar jobs, you first need the right training and education to equip yourself with the necessary skills and tools. Prospective students could take a tip or two (or a few) from some of Denmark’s leading universities.

School curriculums around the country feature interdisciplinary programs that incorporate sustainability and climate-related topics.

Notable schools worth taking a glance at include the following:

Copenhagen Business School
CBS offers an approach to studying business that integrates social and environmental responsibility into its syllabus – a method becoming more popular in recent years. The school offers a range of electives including Sustainable Development and Competitive Advantage, Marketing Strategies in Sustainability, and Fundamentals of Sustainable Accounting and Finance.

Roskilde University
Roskilde has an entire Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, that carries out research across a wide variety of interrelated subjects. Current areas of focus include Population and Ecosystem Ecology; Sustainable Foods and Renewable Energy; Mobility, Tourism and Transport; and Environmental Planning and Governance.

University of Copenhagen:
This school has launched a number of events during the days of COP-15 last year. It also published the Synthesis Report from the International Scientific Congress “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions.” In regard to education programs, there are a number of departments within the Faculty of Life Sciences and the Faculty of Science dealing with climate and environmental topics, as well as several research facilities including Ice and Climate, Copenhagen Centre for Atmospheric Research, and Nordic Centre for Studies of Ecosystem Carbon Exchange and its Interactions with the Climate System – NECC.

University of Southern Denmark:
Southern Denmark has much to offer in the area of sustainability. Its values are even incorporated into the development of its buildings, which are incredibly energy-efficient and clearly have the environment in mind. More science based than other schools, some of the Master programs offered here include Environmental Biology, Environmental Engineering, and Environmental and Resource Management.

Spotlight: Aarhus University
One shining star among the others is the prestigious Aarhus University (AU), ranking 63rd in the QS World University Rankings. With a student body of 35,000 and over 8,500 staff and faculty, there’s no shortage of brain cells here mulling over topics that range from climate change to sustainability to future energy systems.

AU’s top of the line research centers include the National Environmental Research Institute (NERI), which is currently producing research on issue areas including arctic environment, atmospheric environment, and policy analysis.

Since mid-2009, NERI has over 230 projects underway. Most of the topics studied encompass pioneering technologies and expertise that will be nothing short of necessary for one to succeed and find a job in the green economy.

As of late, NERI is working in partnership with the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences to establish a new Master degree program in Agro-Environmental Management to help interested students ease their way into this new market.

Aside from this new addition, AU’s environmental programs already offer students the ability to choose from a wide range of subjects at Master, PhD, and Professional Master levels, whilst participating in research at NERI. This interdisciplinary approach to top of your degree with experience in a prestigious international research environment spanning varying subject areas is a new and exciting way for students and researchers alike to come together and explore “in greater depth and in new and unknown fields.”

Moreover, on Dec. 11 of last year, “we got governmental support to establish a Regional Centre of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development in Denmark” says Programme Director Jeppe Laessoe of the Research Programme for Environmental and Health Education at the University of Aarhus. “We are coordinating this national network and I hope it will help us to promote ESD.”

There’s no denying that AU renders the ability for people to become impassioned in environmentalism through an incredibly broad range of study areas, where each student is certain to find a suitable niche.

International Alliance of Leading Education Institutes
Though Denmark’s notable universities include a large list of programs relevant to Environmental Studies and Climate Change, others around the world are lagging behind in their implementation of such relevant and highly anticipated fields.

The International Alliance of Leading Education Institutes (IALEI), established in 2007, is currently the largest think-tank regarding education. This past year at the ‘Can Education Change the Climate?’ Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 11, IALEI introduced eight recommendations “based on the element that we need to focus on incorporating sustainability into the education of young people.”

The recommendations were founded upon a cross-national study of ten countries, for the effective and efficient installment of sustainability and climate-related subjects into school curriculums worldwide. They also take into account the “initiatives taken and the problems involved in achieving the goals of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).”

Jeppe Laessoe says that it is still “too early to identify effects” of the recommendations. “Hopefully we will succeed in pushing governments and the educational institutions in the ten countries affiliated with the IALEI during the next year.”

IALEI Recommendations
1) Policies which promote Education for Sustainable Development should play a key part in the negotiation of global agreements on climate change policy
2) Maintain and implement the more ambitious aims of Education for Sustainable Development providing people with the competence to take part in the shaping of sustainable development at all levels
3) Governments need to ensure that schools are able to play a leading role in Education for Sustainable Development through the way education systems are managed, schools are organized, and pupils are taught
4) Societies need to reorient schooling towards a stronger emphasis on education for sustainability – greater interdisciplinary work, participation in authentic sustainability challenges and interaction with others outside school
5) Allocate resources to improve teacher knowledge and training through pre- and in-service training; governments should implement policies which help all teachers to develop their capacity to implement ESD
6) Policy initiatives in teacher education should be coordinated with support for ESD at the school level to provide resources and time for experimentation
7) Establishment of mediating organizations and groups to promote interaction between researchers, teachers, NGOs, public officers and others in the field of ESD in order to support knowledge sharing, enhance curriculum development, and promote more valid and reliable ways of evaluating ESD
ESD research needs to focus on:
a. Documenting the state of practice and identifying promising practices
b. Exploring educational outcomes and their evaluation in respect of ESD
c. Identifying and explaining opportunities and problems of general relevance

So, what next?
Denmark is clearly on of those leading countries stepping up to the needs for greater emphasis on green education. Here in North America, there are several institutions that are also actively engaged in training and educating a new cadre of professionals and skilled workers for the green collar jobs of tomorrow. Browse our members’ courses to learn more: http://www.greencollar.org/education/course-catalog.

By Michael Dayan, Ph.D., Research & Communications

Green Collar Association is pleased to bring you an inside look at sustainability and the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics. We interviewed Ann Duffy, Corporate Sustainability Officer for the Vancouver Orgainzing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC) just days before the Games started. While one can’t plan for all contingencies (such as the warm weather during the Games), Ann reveals how VANOC incorporated sustainability into its plans and execution.

Green Collar Association: You’re VANOC’s Corporate Sustainability Officer. Many of our members are unfamiliar with this job title. Can you explain your role?

I was hired early in the process, in early 2006, for the position of Corporate Sustainability Officer. I’m responsible for filing an annual sustainability report, for overseeing the implementation of sustainability practices, and for accounting and maintaining goal achievement. I report on the Games’ environmental, social, economic, and legacy performance.

Green Collar Association: What are the main areas of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) that fall under your responsibility?

The sustainability leadership team has corporate oversight over a number of domains including venue construction, our transportation team (with regard to reducing carbon emissions), and sustainable procurement (overseeing our Buy Smart program, which awards contracts, in part, to local Aboriginal-owned, firms). Contracts for our victory bouquets, for example, have been awarded to a social enterprise for at risk women. As a result of this program these women have received training in floristry. Likewise, VANOC’s procurement policy and practice incorporates sustainability principles. Bids from contractors, suppliers and new businesses must meet a certain criteria. Through its purchasing power and those of related sponsors and organizations, VANOC hopes to add value to communities and local economies.

Green Collar Association: Tell me about your background and training before coming to VANOC.

I graduated from the University of Calgary with a Master of Communications Studies and from the University of Guelph with a degree in Human Geography and Environmental Studies. Before joining VANOC, I was VP, Sustainable Development for CH2M HILL.

Green Collar Association: What was VANOC’s process to make this Olympics green?

The majority of strategic priorities were identified during the bid phase which included a series of conversations with different stakeholder communities, from environmental organizations, inner city, First Nations’, and business interests. To home in on the unique characteristics of the city, we asked what makes sense for the unique characteristics of the bid city. Part of this is about crafting a winning bid and part was for winning support from these stakeholders. We talked with over 23 environmentalist organizations, especially [Green Collar Association member] the Suzuki Foundation.

Green Collar Association: Does VANOC follow internationally recognized CSR reporting standards?

In fact we follow two international reporting standards: (1) Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI), which takes into account both qualitative and quantitative measures and (2) AA1000 for stakeholder engagement.

Green Collar Association: Tell us a little about the relationship between sustainability /CSR and VANOC’s corporate values?

The sustainability team was integrated at the core level. From the very outset VANOC’s plan was to create a team of Green Collar professionals and skilled workers to implement our sustainability objectives. In late 2005 Linda Coady was appointed VP Sustainability and she began recruiting the sustainability team. I was hired early in the process, in early 2006, for the position of Corporate Sustainability Officer. We’re the first Olympics to have a Sustainability Officer. From the outset, sustainability has been an integral component of VANOC’s plan. And it will remain so right through the dissilution phase, after the Olympics. We strive for zero waste before, during, and after the games. And after the games we will donate assets to eligible community organizations.

Green Collar Association: Tell me about the legacy you foresee the 2010 Olympic games.

There are three main categories for understanding this legacy. First, in terms of “hardware,” which is what we call the physical infrastructure, we’ve created sport venues the region can enjoy after the games. And every building has, at minimum, a LEED Silver rating. Second, we speak about a “software” legacy; we’ve implemented new ways of working and organizing procurement in a ways that reduce waste. Our third area of legacy is our “ripple effect.” Under this category, I group other things that enable organizations and companies to adapt. For example, Coke has built a recycling plant in Richmond that wasn’t here before.

By Ron Sokolov, Senior V.P. Strategic Partnerships and Government Relations

I wrote on January 26 that a comprehensive bill to address climate change in 2010 was not in the cards.

Conveniently, the next day, none other than Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, speaking in front of the 2010 Clean Energy, Jobs, and Security Forum on the Hill said ‘hold on, we can still do something.’

Senator Graham, along with Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Kerry (D-MA) form the basis of a bi-partisan effort to push forward climate change legislation. As we reported back in December, all three signed a letter to President Obama in advance of his trip to Copenhagen outlining what they call a “Framework for Climate Action”

So why is Senator Graham optimistic? He thinks that senators (particularly Democrats) can’t face the voters in November without a major legislative accomplishment, particularly with lack of progress on health care reform. So is compromise in the air?

Let me be clear. We at Green Collar Association believe that enacting climate change legislation is critical. It makes sense for the economy, for our business members, our educational members, and our individual members seeking training for and employment in a socially responsible economy.

But the key missing ingredient from Senator Graham’s calculus is whether a climate change law is what the public wants. Public opinion polls tell a mixed message. A Washington Post/ABC News poll shows by more than 2 to 1 ratio people think the Federal government should regulate GHG. The same poll found that 60% of people would favor regulations of GHG even if it raised their monthly expenses by $10, with 55% still in favor with a $25/month increase.

So what’s my concern? Climate change ranks last when compared to other 2010 priorities according to a 2010 Pew Research poll. Only 28% of respondents ranked ‘global warming’ as a priority, compared to 83% who identified ‘the economy’ and 81% who identified ‘jobs’.

As I suggested in an earlier blog, the best chance for climate change legislation in 2010 is to link the issues of job creation and climate change. It’s not rocket science. Look no further than China to see the job potential.

We have the means. We have the capital. We have the capability. We need a compelling business case. This is what Senators Graham, Lieberman, and Kerry need to do if they are to deliver a significant legislative accomplishment for the voters in 2010.

By Alanna Mackenzie

Water, one of the most precious resources on the planet, is frequently perceived of as a renewable resource, continually replenished by the natural water cycle. Yet while it is true that the total amount of water on earth has remained at a constant since geological times, the availability of usable freshwater is diminishing at a rapid pace. This gradual degradation of water is brought about through pollution, abuse and misuse, a tragic predicament for which the only apparent solution is an efficient, equitable system of water management. The water scarcity problem that plagues many regions of the world today has resulted less from water’s physical availability than from the nature of its demand and allocation. Better governance and fairer distribution of water is urgently required if a reasonable level of consumable freshwater can be restored to many countries. With the world’s population rising at a rapid pace, it might appear as though there is no way out of the water crisis – that increasing demand will inevitably accelerate the depletion of water. However, the fact that the United States consumes less water today than it did 35 years ago, supports the possibility of improving water usage despite growing population rates. In 1975, for example, U.S water use peaked at 1,944 gallons per person per day, and has since dropped to approximately 1,383 g/p/d. Despite this improvement, however, current U.S and global demand levels are still high, and must be re-evaluated. Moreover, improved efficiency must extend to all sectors of water use, ranging from the agricultural to the energy sector.

Unless attempts are made to improve the efficiency of water in the agricultural sector, there will not be enough land, water or human capacity to produce food over the next fifty years. Increasing demand for food is estimated to occur; among the middle class in particular, demand for meat, which requires substantially more water than crops to produce, will rise rapidly. Traditional irrigation practices frequently waste water, and the unsustainable acquisition of groundwater occurs regularly in developing nations such as India and China. Irrigation technologies can be rendered more efficient by limiting the amount of soil surface area they operate on, and crops engineered to adapt to water-scarce conditions. “Deficit irrigation” – watering crops in critical periods only rather than the entire growing season – can significantly reduce irrigation inefficiencies. In the energy sector – which depends enormously upon water to sustain all stages of energy production – sustainable water practices must also be used. Replacing water-cooling with air-cooling, combining water and energy efficiency efforts, and taking advantage of wind power as a zero-water alternative source, are all ways to avoid wasteful water practices in the energy sector.

While efforts to conserve water at the national level are necessary to ensure the sustainability of future water levels, there must also be transnational cooperation through trade. Countries will increasingly feel pressure to defend their economic securities and the depletion of their water resources. Since a lot of water is required to produce very little food, importing staple products such as cereal, meat and other foods in water scarce areas, can reduce direct agricultural water use substantially. However, today there is less agricultural trade when more is needed. A reconfiguration of international trade is needed to adapt to water crises worldwide; for example, trading in “virtual water” (water-intense products) can be a useful way to avoid using excessive domestic water in agriculture. Trade may not be the only avenue towards effectively allocating water resources; investment in water infrastructure projects, “water rights”, and foreign land that is rich in water resources, can potentially provide opportunities for solutions. However, investment interest will only gravitate towards regions in which sound management policies are already established. Without reforms firmly implemented, investment will be discouraged.

Water and sanitation access is an issue that involves power dynamics and politics as much as it does the physical accessibility to water-rich environments. However, in my opinion, it is impossible to effectively tackle the issue of water management through a top-down approach only: all levels of the political process must be involved, and a linkage between local communities and higher political levels must occur. Since water profoundly affects the regional populations that consume it either directly or indirectly – either through drinking water, agricultural goods, or energy-fueled products – then water’s management must be reformed at the domestic level. Communities can engage in water conservation through such strategies as water recycling and reuse, rainwater harvesting, and desalination3. Businesses and multinational corporations, however, must be accountable to the regional environments they disrupt and utilize, and the communities whose ecosystems they share.4 According to Vandana Shiva, an Indian environmental and political activist, “Local community management is a precondition for both consumption and equitable use.”5 Since water presents problems as a tradable resource – it is very heavy and the cost of transporting it several times its value – water as a commodity is more suited to national or regional markets, except as “water rights”, which can be traded on a global scale. Ideally, management should thus combine efforts from local areas directly affected by change, with the conservation strategies of the governments and businesses which indirectly affect them.

For those interested in careers in water management and water-related issues, here is a list of possible options (see http://www.greencollar.org/career.php for more information)

Environmental Inspector – Hazardous Waste, Health, Sanitary, Sewage

Sewer and Water Operator – (Trenchless Technology)

Water and Waste Plant Operator – Environmental

Conservation Movement Worker

Pipefitter, Sprinkler Fitter, Steam Fitter
Steamfitters and pipefitters lay out, assemble, fabricate, maintain, troubleshoot and repair piping systems carrying water, steam, chemicals and fuel in heating, cooling, lubricating and other process piping systems. Sprinkler system installers fabricate, install, test, maintain and repair water, foam, carbon dioxide and dry chemical sprinkler systems in buildings for fire protection purposes. Steamfitters, pipefitters and sprinkler system installers are employed in maintenance departments of factories, plants and similar establishments, by pipefitting and sprinkler system contractors, or they may be self-employed.

Pipefitting/Plumbing Supervisors, Foreman, Contractors
This unit group includes plumbing and other pipefitting trade contractors who own and operate their own businesses. This group also includes supervisors who supervise and co-ordinate the activities of workers classified in the following unit groups: Plumbers (7251), Steamfitters, Pipefitters and Sprinkler System Installers (7252) and Gas Fitters (7253). They are employed by construction companies, mechanical, plumbing and pipefitting trade contractors and maintenance departments of industrial, commercial and manufacturing establishments.

By Joseph Tohill

To the average North American, tackling climate change seems to be a daunting challenge. Indeed, the predictions from the scientific community of sea level rise, widespread famine, and increasing incidence of infectious disease paint a tumultuous future for our planet. Many social scientists highlight capitalism as the root cause of our present situation; the unrelenting drive for profit pushes atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to dangerous levels while polluting our oceans and destroying natural habitats.

It seems that we are presented with a dismal future if our present course is not averted. However, the idea that capitalism is the source of all evil and must be either destroyed or cutback is misguided. In fact, quite the contrary is the case. Capitalism is the only solution to changing our present course – the only system to effectively avoid the dire scenarios we are now faced with. No system in our world has been more effective than capitalism in increasing human productivity, fostering economic growth, and raising living standards. The trick is to harness these forces and unleash them into a future of sustainable business. This new way of conducting business is easier than many believe, and it begins with Natural Capitalism.

Natural Capitalism is a concept introduced by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins. They propose a shift from the wasteful practices of Industrial Capitalism which have guided our world for the past two centuries and the embrace of Natural Capitalism, which assigns values to all elements of the business model, including natural resources and living systems. The result would be business models that are embedded in the natural biological system rather than apart from it. The beauty of this system is that it is in fact more profitable, less wasteful, and drastically more sustainable. How do businesses accomplish this?

At the heart of this new system is the use of natural cycles to inform business models. In nature, ecosystems are founded on the very notion that every process has a purpose and nothing is left to waste. When a tree dies, it starts to decay. But the process does not end there, with a dead, decaying tree. Bacteria work to break down the dead material into compost, which is then used to provide nutrients for new trees. And the cycle repeats itself. There is no waste in nature and consequently every process is efficient.

Businesses can unleash these same efficient and non-wasteful processes in business models, and become enormously profitable at the same time. To accomplish this, businesses need to design out waste from their production models. Anything that is an emission, a toxic substance, or otherwise “un-sellable product” should be excluded from production if it can not also be reused. Put another way, if it cannot be reintegrated as natural nutrients for the ecosystem or technical nutrients for the manufacturing system it should not even exist.

Take the example of DesignTex, a subsidiary of Steelcase – the world’s largest supplier of office furniture. Under increasing scrutiny from the Swiss government because of the toxic chemicals it used in its fabric dyes, DesignTex commissioned an architect to help design a “green” textile for upholstering office chairs. The design team screened thousands of different chemicals and eventually arrived at only 38 that were non-toxic. Using these 38 chemicals, they created cloth that was not only environmentally friendly, it felt better to the touch, lasted longer, and was aesthetically superior to the older fabric. Furthermore, because it required fewer and cheaper feed-stocks and presented no health implications, production costs were reduced resulting in long-term savings for the company. Swiss inspectors were astonished by the fact that water leaving the plant was actually cleaner than the drinking water entering it – the cloth itself was acting as an additional filter.

DesignTex is only one of many new businesses at the forefront of a new conceptual re-imagining of business models. Hunter and Lovins present numerous other inspiring examples in their book, Natural Capitalism. Capitalising on efficiency and natural processes are becoming a reality for businesses that want to remain competitive in tomorrow’s world. Those that do not embrace a new way of accounting for the environment will suffer the consequences both on their balance sheets and in the public eye.

The focus for businesses should be in both realigning the business plan to account for “natural capital” and in hiring employees that are ahead of the curve when it comes to energy and resource efficiency. This message is equally important to individuals who want to remain competitive in the face of prospective employment opportunities – business are beginning to realize the importance of including sustainability in their corporate models. Heightening one’s knowledge and skills in the green sector will undoubtedly increase one’s competitive edge.

By Ron Sokolov, Senior V.P. Strategic Partnerships and Government Relations

The President stated a very simple truth in his State of the Union speech last night that often gets lost in the debate over climate change and clean energy. It is this:

The world is moving toward a cleaner energy future, with or without the United States.

It will happen much quicker with the United States in the lead, not only because we are the biggest market in the world, but because of our strengths in R&D and innovation. At the end of the day, when the US gets behind something, there isn’t a country in the world that can rival our accomplishments.

Yesterday I blogged that the conditions are not favorable for the US Congress to pass a comprehensive climate bill this year. I haven’t changed my thinking here. But I also said that Congress can do a lot for clean energy by approaching it from a job stimulation approach, as jobs are top of mind for nearly all Americans. Congress can still provide incentives for R&D. Congress can still do a lot to build a clean energy manufacturing infrastructure. Congress can still incent individuals to change behaviors. And this will bring us closer to energy independence. A cleaner environment. A safer enviroment. And greater national security.

At Green Collar Association we will work tirelessly with our partners to create the infrastructure and structure incentives that will allow American ingenuity the opportunity to compete with other countries that are pouring in tens of billions of dollars every month.

So just like they say the path to a man’s heart is through his stomach, the past to cleaner energy is through jobs.