Featured Sponsor
Featured Resources
This concise and fact-filled guide, the latest book by Jerry Yudelson, provides a roadmap...
This study finds that a robust climate bill could boost the U.S. economy by about $111...
This study, conducted by the U.S. Green Building Council and Booz Allen Hamilton,...
This report is seventh in an annual series looking at impacts in the green buildings...
This second annual report, by Rob Watson and the GreenBiz.com editorial team, explores...
Citizen Engineer is a fusion of ideas, information, advice, and opinions to provide you...

Browse
Engage
Research
The smart track
Absolutely.
There is no question now of the future direction of how we live and do business. The world will do so with a greater respect and awareness for how it effects and maintains a stasis of global health. Accepting such a truth leaves one with only two options: We will continue to count on other nations to produce products for us, thereby selling short our vast amount intellectual capital and adding to a trade deficit. Or we will be one of the first countries to complete a paradigm shift instead of being one of the last. We will reclaim our position as capitol of innovation and quality, being the example that we should be in the global landscape. An environmental industry base is the way.
Can anyone access the link?
I'm getting an "Access Denied" message, even when I'm logged in...
Link
Just go to the Institute website to get the .pdf.
As usually, the "job creation" is a lie. Sure, spending $100 billion on ANYTHING will create jobs. But taxing or borrowing that $100 billion will destroy about the same number of jobs. The authors even admit as much in the annex of their report. All these "stimulus plans" are essentially zero-sum games. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, it makes little sense to yap about all the jobs that will be created by Paul's spending without noting that Peter's spending was reduced by the same amount. Yet politicians pull this wool over our eyes time and time again. Don't fall for it.
An improvement over current govt. investments...
What of the report's claim that the U.S. unemployment rate would be reduced? Does this not indicate more jobs/less joblessness? I don't believe this was a politically motivated study and see no embedded conspiracies.
But since we're speaking of politicians pulling the wool over our eyes, are we to believe that investing that $100B in the oil industry, the military, or "national security," is somehow a better use of the money?
Surely the investment would, in addition to combating unemployment, create better jobs, a better economy, and a better future. It is only one piece of the puzzle, but a necessary piece. I would recommend "Break Through: From "The Death of Environmentalism" to the Politics of Possibility," by Nordhaus & Shellenberger for further insight and inspiration.
Indiana's Unemployment Fund....
Unemployed people are about to get more money due to the economic stimulus package. They'll be able to collect for a longer period of time. Benefits for them will be paid for a maximum of 59 weeks. The federal stimulus package is paying for the increases. It also contains money to help the state with the $400 million it has borrowed to make up a shortage in Indiana's Unemployment Fund. Indiana unemployment has taken a hard hit, as Indiana unemployment funds have run out. The funds for Indiana's unemployment are about to hit zero, and payday loans aren't going to be enough to stave it off. The economic stimulus package was supposed to extend the aid for people that are currently looking for work, but this provision has likely made the ills of Indiana worse, as lawmakers are frantically trying to find a solution to their unemployment insolvency. Tennessee and West Virginia are attempting to increase revenue, as they will face shortfalls within a year without intervention. They fear the fate of running dry like Indiana unemployment funding.
Post new comment