I’ve been wondering about this for a while and it seems others are too. I’d like to see homeowners and businesses finding ways to make their buildings more environmentally friendly and healthy to be in. But, does the focus on building green collar jobs really bring in new money (the other kind of green) to a city? I got to thinking about this the other day after receiving yet another invitation to a Green Plumbers training. It seemed to me that all the additional designation meant, besides the educational component, was that it could be used as a marketing tool for one plumber to be chosen over another if a consumer wasn’t aware that the non-designee may have learned the skill elsewhere other than through this company.
An article in the New York Times from March of 2008 explores this same topic. Oddly enough, the article is arguing a bit toward the side that we aren’t really going to feel a big effect of new jobs but rather a conversion of skills – although I do think some time will be there for retrofitting houses, such as the Green Plumbers training on solar hot water. I know I’d like to see my house retrofitted with solar power and the use of recycling gray water. These types of changes to a house built in 1970 would certainly be new business above and beyond the typical maintenance of the home and they’d likely fit nicely into Seattle’s plans to make energy efficiency audits potentially mandatory for consumer review.
What’s your take on it?
