Comment ▼ Jobs and the environment here will everyone work in the future? And what will they do? Do you find yourself wondering how this nation or any nation will be able to create meaningful jobs in the face of so much efficiency in the computer age? “Downsizing”, “restructuring”, and “furloughs” are simply euphemisms for more people losing their jobs. Companies lay off workers and their stock goes up because more goods and services can be produced by fewer employees. In the United States, we have lost more than 2.5 million jobs in the past three years. It’s no wonder that the current economic turnaround has been labeled as an oxymoron, a “jobless recovery”. Former U.S. President Harry S. Truman once said, “It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose yours.” With automated tellers at banks and grocery stores, electronic kiosks for check-in at airports, and computerized voices on helplines, a lot of people are losing their jobs (and we may never get to speak to a real person again). Why pay $15 per hour wages in the United States when you could pay $2.60 in Mexico or, better yet, $0.62 in China? And it is not only sweatshops that can be located overseas. Radiologists can read X-rays from India, and chemical and environmental engineers can provide consulting and design from Malaysia. If your job does not require you to meet face-to-face with real people, it may be in jeopardy. Companies will always locate where they have a competitive advantage, and cheaper labor provides that advantage in many sectors. It’s the gospel according to globalization that increased trade will create a higher standard of living for everybody. But as part of this social contract, companies must provide a fair living wage and raise the quality of life in developing countries. So how do we create quality jobs? One way is to employ people to produce novel products. I am not thinking here of MP3 players, DVDs, and Blackberry PDAs (although these do create some jobs). I am talking about the late Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter’s notion of “creative destruction”—that is, replacing the current means of production with new, better methods to achieve the same end. The greatest challenge for the 21st century may be fueling our economy while transitioning from the fossil fuel age. It is not so much that we are running out of fossil fuels (we will always be able to purchase them “at a price”), but rather that serious environmental constraints have emerged. Health effects from ozone, particulate matter, sulfur oxides, and mercury in the atmosphere, and the problems arising from exponentially increasing greenhouse gases are very real threats to people and the planet. The December 1, 2003, issue of ES&T on green engineering and sustainability helped point the path toward renewable energy technologies: wind, solar, biomass, and
W
© 2004 American Chemical Society
hydrogen fuel cells. These technologies could create highquality jobs while solving multiple environmental dilemmas. One hundred thousand jobs have been created in the global wind power industry alone, which is growing at ~30% per year, although the United States has largely ceded the manufacturing of wind turbines to Europe. Other technologies abound, such as green chemistry and synthesis pathways, biomass as a preferred chemical feedstock to oil, computational toxicology to eventually eliminate the use of animal testing, reverse-osmosis membranes for water reuse and desalination of brackish waters in water-short regions of the world, carbon sequestration for managing carbon dioxide during the transition period, and fuel cells with greater efficiencies for everything from cars to heating and air conditioning. All these technologies hold promise for a soft energy pathway and a cleaner environment, and they will employ people. Cutting taxes is not the only way to stimulate the economy and create jobs. A second way is to clean up the environment, both here and abroad, while providing valuable infrastructure and services for the nation. “New Dealers” during the Great Depression said that it would be better to take all the gold in Fort Knox, bury it, and pay workers to dig it back out again, rather than accept high unemployment. We do not need such radical measures. Why not pay people to improve their environment, protect rivers and estuaries, plant riparian zone buffer strips to purify our nation’s waters, restore prairies, create wetlands, establish parks, contribute to museum collections and seed banks, and clean up brownfields? In addition, the needs of the developing world are huge; 1.1 billion people lack safe drinking water, and 2.4 billion need sanitation. Why not use development funds to send a hundred thousand trained young people to work in developing countries on infrastructure and water quality problems? It could constitute the Environmental Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps of the 21st century. We could use the goal of environmental improvement as an economic engine to drive our economy and employ our people. People need someone to love, a place to belong, and something meaningful to do. A jobless recovery is one that leaves people high and dry. Green technologies and programs could create jobs, invigorate the economy, and improve the environment.
Jerald L. Schnoor Editor
[email protected] MARCH 1, 2004 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 79A
