Arthur Cordell quoted the Guardian Weekly: > Rather harder to come by, however, are supporters for Forrester's idea that > this is the end of employment as we know it, although this visionary aspect > of her theme is gaining ground among the Greens, who can see that fewer jobs > equals less pollution. ^^^^^^^^^^ ======^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The term "equals" suggests a symmetry that isn't there. Thinking of the "classical" polluting jobs, of course less jobs will lead to less pollution, but in the other direction, the "equation" doesn't have to apply at all. In fact, MORE jobs can be created with less polluting technologies, if the political will is there. Examples abound in all sectors -- agriculture, industry and services. Consider a recent study of the WWF: # Aggressive US global warming policy would mean large cost savings and # job gains 10 August, 1999 # # Gland, Switzerland - A comprehensive new study released today by the # Tellus Institute and WWF, the conservation organisation, shows that the # United States could reduce the pollution that leads to global warming and # at the same time spur substantial domestic job and economic growth. # # The report, "America's Global Warming Solutions" shows how a mix of # financial incentives, regulatory changes and market measures to promote # efficient and non-polluting technologies could save the US as much as $43 # billion per year on energy costs, and create more than 870,000 new jobs by # 2010. Applying these policies would also ensure that the US could reduce # its emissions by 14 per cent below 1990 levels, twice the amount specified # in the 1997 Kyoto climate treaty. A further consequence would be # substantial reductions in other air pollutants harmful to human health. [...] Greetings, Chris
