Jon Rynn’s Posts

• Every job can be green, part three 1

  Posted 7 months ago

  This is the third and last installment of my chapter, "Green jobs in a sustainable economy," published recently in the book "Mandate for Change." You can read part one and part two, in which I discuss the first six out of eight ways in which to create an environmentally sustainable economy.

• Cap-and-dividend, not cap-and-offset

  Fast action on climate change 0

  Posted 7 months ago

  This is a guest post from Ted Glick, a long-time progressive and climate activist. More information and contact information can be found at tedglick.com

  Tomorrow, April 20th, I and over 200 other people around the country and from several countries will be fasting. We'll be doing so to make a statement that it is long overdue that this country gets on the right side, gives concrete leadership, to the wide and deep clean energy revolution that is absolutely essential, and soon, if we're to have a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. 

  We're doing this tomorrow because this… Read More

• Every job can be green, part two 4

  Posted 7 months, 1 week ago

  Part two of my chapter, "Green jobs in a sustainable economy," published recently in the book "Mandate for Change."

• Thank you, Van Jones, for being busy

  Every job can be green, part one 1

  Posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

  A green-collar jobs program can help create an environmentally and economically sustainable society that: drastically reduces its greenhouse gas emissions; encourages energy independence from oil; eliminates the worry of heating and cooling one's home; and increases food security, all while providing millions of high-quality, well-paying, long-term jobs, thus bringing millions of people into a stable middle class.

• The 'Big Fix' is in

  The economy needs to be green to be 'fixed' 9

  Posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago

  As is often the case, The New York Times serves as a good example of the mistaken assumptions underlying conventional wisdom. In his Sunday Magazine cover story, "The Big Fix," Times economic columnist David Leonhardt combines many of the misconceptions surrounding the idea of "green jobs." As I fretted in a previous post, some writers, including Leonhardt, seem to be setting up some sort of cosmic battle between green jobs, cap-and-trade, and economic growth:

  Of the $700 billion we spend each year on energy, more than half stays inside this country. It goes to coal companies or utilities… Read More

All Posts

Jon Rynn’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  BioD, I almost half-jokingly have called on the Navy to turn into a seas-protection service for a long-time, good to hear someone else try that line! Although the Navy apparently helps ships fight/avoid Greenpeace and other anti-whaling type ships...it's totally infuriating.On So long and thanks for all the fish posted 2 days, 10 hours ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Oh yeah -- another big question of mine has always been, could organic/biointensive/permaculture gardening both sequester carbon and feed everybody really well? I once took a shot at it by using data from John Jeavons, but maybe you have something better...although it doesn't seem to be a well-researched question.On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 5 days, 10 hours ago 147 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Adam, thanks for the links and the reply. Just in case you haven't seen it, David Montgomery's book "Dirt: The erosion of civilizations" is a great historical background on how the destruction of the soil, all by itself, can lead to civilizational collapse. I was under the impression that in Al Gore's new book he talks a lot about soil sequestration -- terra preta -- there used to be a commenter here, went by the name Pangolin, who commented extensively about terra preta. I personally don't like the "xx% reduction by 20XX" arguments, as I talked about in my first post -- we need to get as close to 0% emissions as possible as soon as possible, and yes, reverse with soil sequestration. But that's going to require some government support too!On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 5 days, 10 hours ago 147 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Adam, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying, first, It's too late, there's nothing we can do; or, two, We're not advocating strong enough measures; or simply, three, we're not scaring the crap out of people enough? My answer to these is, first, while there's still any sliver of hope, the responsible thing to do (I think the Moral or Categorical Imperative, Kant-style? Maybe someone can explain this) is to try to save the planet. This is equivalent to your typical monster movie, where the outgunned hero somehow manages to save everybody against the monster....the monster now being greenhouse gases. Number two, in my posts I have consistently called for multi-trillion dollars efforts, with government building all the windmills, trains, etc., to simply transform the whole society. I mean, most of the groups you refer to would never advocate that sort of thing because it's politically unrealistic, but the thing is, it actually solves the problem...or are you saying that there's no way to get to the point politically -- admittedly it would take many years -- where you could actually implement a government-run program to actually solve the problem? Which brings me to third, Definitely we should scare the crap out of everybody, but only if it's accompanied by a program that will solve the problem. If you scare the crap out of everybody without a program, they just freeze up, it's human nature. But it's also human nature to even enjoy a challenge if there's a straightforward way to solve the problem...which I think multitrillion dollar government programs do, as completely ignored as that solution seems to be. So which is it?On We have met the deniers, and they are us posted 1 week ago 147 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sorry for the delay on this sort of stuff...We may have been through this before, but the question comes down to, Is this like a World War scenario, where we have to throw whatever we can at the issue, even if it isn't the best choice? Assuming there is a social consensus that global warming has to be stopped, the question becomes how quickly, and the quicker the plan has to be, historically, the more the government has to directly intervene (historically, the faster a nation wants to catch up industrially, the more government intervenes). That doesn't meant the government owns the company building the wind systems, but it could mean the government tells companies what to make, as in World War II. As for deficits, my newest Brilliant Idea is that, in order for an issue to be Serious, it has to massively increase the deficit. Apparently wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and financial bailouts, are Serious, so deficits be damned. Health care is not Serious, so it can't add "one cent" to the deficit, as our President said. So I say, if global warming really is serious, it should add trillions to the deficit. Which leads me to a different rant, which is, it actually doesn't have to be a deficit if the government prints the money as legal tender, instead of borrowing it from the Federal Reserve and paying interest on it...after all, money should reflect created wealth, and new wind systems, for instance, are real wealth...On Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power? posted 1 week, 1 day ago 144 Responses