Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Can Green Jobs Save the American Middle Class?

By Brita Belli, E Magazine. Posted November 9, 2007.


While the traditional economic outlook is bleak, the green economy is taking shape.
Advertisement

The American middle class -- of which some 80 percent of Americans claim to be a part -- is getting anxious. While there is no carved-in-stone edict about what it means to be middle class, it's the term that Americans hang their dreams on.

It suggests earning enough to get by without struggling; being able to afford health care, college costs and the occasional trip to Disney World. The middle-class ideal is tied to earning power, and it's there that confidence is eroding. Over the last five years, while most workers' incomes have increased slowly or not at all, costs have reached record levels. Housing costs are up 23 percent, college costs up 44 percent and health insurance costs up 71 percent.

And while the traditional economic outlook is bleak, the green economy is taking shape, bringing with it the promise of well-paying manufacturing jobs; of management and sales opportunities with huge growth potential and lots of niche positions for enterprising students and job seekers looking for alternative careers. On the upper tiers of the economic ladder, many CEOs and CFOs are already jumping into green jobs, and online green job directories are heavy with listings for those with established business experience.

What remains to be seen is if the career ladders appearing in every sector, from green building to organic farming, solar installation and sustainable marketing, are available to all or to a select few. With the momentum behind environmental issues, Congress, spurred by advocacy organizations such as the Apollo Alliance and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, is responding with legislation that could ensure a place for America's disadvantaged and disenfranchised in the new green economy. For that to happen, the House version of the new energy legislation -- spearheaded by Hilda Solis (D-CA) and John Tierney (D-MA) -- has to make it through Congress and past President George W. Bush's threatened veto.

The Green Jobs Act, which passed the House as part of the Energy Bill last August with a vote of 241 to 172, contains specific language about using the green economy as a "pathway out of poverty." Of the $125 million that would be set aside for job training in renewable energy, energy-efficient vehicles and green building, $25 million of that would be earmarked specifically for those most difficult to hire: at-risk youths, former inmates and welfare recipients. The Energy Savings Act of 2007 sponsored by Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Hilary Clinton (D-NY) in the Senate allows for $100 million in training for "green-collar jobs," but is not geared specifically toward low-income Americans.

That, says Van Jones, president of the Ella Baker Center, is a critical difference. "There's this whole invisible infrastructure trying to get people who need jobs connected with work," says Jones. "There are vocational training centers, return-from-prison work centers, community colleges. But none of that infrastructure is pointed at the green economy. There are a lot of 'certificate factories' pointed at the pollution-based economy, and lots of people going to night school for jobs that aren't there any more."

The Green Jobs Act is a way of "repurposing our job training," says Jones. He testified before Congress in favor of the bill -- a national version of the Green Jobs Corps his organization established in Oakland, California -- and says the shortage of skilled workers throughout the renewable energy sector is already leading eco-entrepreneurs to hire their college buddies. But there's a larger issue at stake. Unless the green economy is designed to include America's urban youth, they are bound to be overlooked, shuffled back into the same low-wage, go-nowhere retail and fast food jobs with little opportunity for improvement.

"The work of saving the polar bears and poor kids is the same work," says Jones. "If we give the jobs to the people who most need them, we solve two problems."

Many say that $100 to $125 million is miniscule money for such a major economic transition. But the government's initial investment is only meant to be a launch pad, says Kevin Doyle, president of green consulting and training company Green Economy. "The federal government serves best as an innovative leader," he says. "Money from the private sector should be at least five times that much."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: green collar jobs, green jobs

Brita Belli is managing editor of E Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Nuclear jobs are green. Why did you omit them?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 9, 2007 1:12 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Yucca Mountain is full of nuclear fuel that needs to be reprocessed. We used
to reprocess spent fuel rods until 1/2 ton of enriched uranium somehow wound up
in Israel.
2. Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant puts out 56
to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go:
Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
3. See the rest of Alex Gabbard's article. U238 can be bred into Plutonium and
Thorium can be bred into Uranium. We can fuel our nuclear power plants for
CENTURIES just by extracting uranium and thorium from coal cinders and
smoke.
4. See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hi Posted by: matti
COAL and other fossil fuels are UNgreen
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 9, 2007 1:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Existential Risk that is virtually certain to
happen is the same as the End Permian mass extinction:
Hydrogen Sulfide. It is possible to avoid it, but the power
of wealth must be overcome. Coal is a $100 Billion [US]
industry in the US alone.
download from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
from the October 2006 issue of Scientific American
Article: "Impact from the Deep"
"Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and
sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass
extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions
build once again? "
By Peter D. Ward
The last paragraph of the article says:
"The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the
Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under
1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic,
CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around
385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric
carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the
end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the
beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That
is something our society should never find out."
The hydrogen sulfide will finally put an end to the mining of
coal. Nuclear power is the safest available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Middle Class" HA!
Posted by: matti on Nov 9, 2007 1:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love the idea of a Middle Class in a society where ONE PERCENT of the population owns A THIRD of the Wealth (With Strong Influence over another Third, and Considerable Influence over the remaining Third) at the same time they collect A FIFTH of the Yearly Income.

I might move from the "middle" of the herd to the "low" end?

OH NOES!

I sure hope one of the cowboys figures out a new way for us to do whatever he says, so I can avoid this terrible fate!

"Green" Wage-Slavery! HOORAY!



And now I'll read the article, but that title alone deserved some comment.



Now has the Winter of our Discontent, been made Scorching Hell, by the Son of Bush,

-matti

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Social Response Capitalism" Posted by: eddie torres
Ron Paul on Kudlow's show - a good interview.
Posted by: Lauren on Nov 9, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I am posting it here because of the comments (below). From a Ron Paul You Tube.

Benaiahh (1 hour ago)

ROFL not even Ron Paul understands how this grass root movement is working. It wasn't one guy in Florida who did all of this, it was all of this. They just can't comprehend how we're doing all of this without a centralized form of leadership.

lastnymleft (58 minutes ago)

We're all leaders! And we're all workers! We each must do whatever we can within our power to get this man elected.

This is a lot of fun, this r3V0Lution, isn't it? :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is all very nice but...
Posted by: sausage on Nov 9, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't nice that our American investor-class is finally...finally!...jumping aboard the green express.

What utter nonsense and bullshit. To think that the very wolves who've brought us to this point will magically "save" the working-middle class by going "green" is on the face of it ridiculous. This is the gospel of Robert "those-wind-turbines-are-blocking-my-oceanview" Kennedy, Jr., green capitalism.

It's all well and good that some of our polluter industries begin rethinking their priorities and go "green." My state is becoming a center for renewable energy with investments in wind turbine factories and biofuels. The average wage for blue...er...green collar workers at these new and proposed plants averages at about $19 an hour. Moreover neither of these industries, wind turbine manufacturing and biofuel so far as I know, is unionized.

And there are pitfalls and limits in both strategies. I mean, when the land is saturated with wind turbines the manufacturing of new turbines will, of necessity, slow, replacement becomes priority, therefore fewer "green" collar workers will be needed; Layoffs ensue. And, as we know now, there is a host of problems with ethanol.

So the investor class has finally pulled its collective head out of its collective ass to realize the profit potential in going "green." How nice. But it's too little too late. Once Average Joes like us notice that winters are milder, glaciers are smaller and praying mantids and armadillos are wandering around the upper Midwest it is too f*cking late.

What is needed is a concerted effort like from the federal government like World War II or the New Deal with a healthy dose of socialism thrown in for good measure. The United States can't just "invest" its way out of a looming climate disaster. Just tightening standards for automobiles to cut exhaust emissions by one half by 2048 or whatever aint' gonna cut it, folks. Asking the polluter investment comapnies nicely to "please, please cut emissions, just a little," ain't gonna cut it. Our politicians in the employ of the investor class are driving this world right into the ditch and it's up to us to get their hands off the wheel!

Catastrophic climate change is a bigger threat to the our ass than al Qaida or nuclear weaponery ever was, now the investor class is looking to profit off this looming disaster too. The fate of the planet and all life on it should not be left in the hands of the very individuals who have profited off making a mess of it in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Community colleges need to develop Green Jobs training NOW...
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Nov 9, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Community colleges need to develop Green Jobs training NOW...
Sure, a person can spend 20k a semester at some expensive private eco-school but if we want to include the unemployed and the working poor through the middle class folks, training should begin at the community college level. During the community college start up of multimedia programs, (1997-1999), I proposed this to the Director of Technology (department head) at a local community college. He wasn't impressed with the idea. But now, the time is right! C'mon California community colleges. Get with the program!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate green
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 9, 2007 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the 300 largest companies want to be the source of all that's green?

Green has mostly come, and continues to come, from the backyards and garages of the world's small inventors.

Congress should help the little guy invent, especially if we want to actually stop global warming, but watch a Democratic Congress pay off those who paid them off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One day: Al Gore will be hauled before the International Criminal Court
Posted by: Frankstank on Nov 9, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For crimes against humanity. It will be the year 2012, after 'the 150' died. 'The 150' was what people called the 150 million people who died from starvation as a result of the switch to green fuels.

A cranky Al Gore will be wheeled in to the court. Spitting venom, he will deny any responsibility. His televised trial will be watched in detention facities around the world by his co-accused: 10,000 people from various green NGOs, venture capitalists and advocacy groups. All will face the same charge.

I can see this happening: the riots have already started, and as George Monbiot pointed out this week, the starving has started as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So the solution is? Posted by: sausage
Don't Save The Middle Class ...
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Nov 9, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
save the planet! We don't need more consumers causing things like the massive oil spill that just occurred in San Francisco Bay by a container ship hitting a bridge tower. (See articles at sfgate.com) Until our economy is redirected to buying, making and selling things locally, the last thing we should be concerned with is how to keep more people spending more money on needless crap that's destroying the Earth. The cause of this disgusting oil spill is not only the people who own and run the companies that make and ship this crap, but also all the workers at those companies (including the Longshoremen with whom the left is very friendly) and people who BUY this needless garbage. If you can't buy things made locally, don't buy them. And the left needs to quit prioritizing the economy and money over the environment, just like the right does. This is supposed to be an environmental section of this website. Where do you stand: for the Earth or for money?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd like to see some green money
Posted by: anothername on Nov 9, 2007 10:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The secret here is that green jobs are simply jobs. They are just in new companies or in old companies with new products. This article looks at training people for particular jobs, which goes to the heart of the education problem, not the economic problem.

We use the Green Jobs Acts to pay employers to hire certain people over other people, just as we have done with numerous other incentive programs. I believe we as a nation should help people who are struggling to have access to jobs, but I also understand that many people who are not subsidized do not get hired because they cost the employer more.

Is the dry cleaner who uses environmentally-friendly methods going to receive credit for being part of the green economy? Probably not, but the first few cleaners in a community who move towards the green direction may have a financial reward in new customers.

Is the receptionist who works at a solar panel factory going to need skills different from a receptionist who works at an automotive plant? Is a factory worker going to need more training to build a fuel-efficient car as compared to training needed to build an SUV? No, and the receptionist is probably not treated as a green employee but that business still offers her or him a job. Think back to the craze of the computer industry. There were many more people working at minimum wage jobs in chip factories than there were highly-paid software writers, and where are either of those jobs now?

Don’t forget that the corn-based ethanol craze is considered part of the green economy. Yet, there is already an imbalance in the number of ethanol plants and demand. Moreover, the price paid for corn for ethanol has raised the price of food across the board.

As for the jobs created by installation of solar panels and windmills, look at the number of construction sites where union workers are kicked off the job and foreign workers, possibly indentured servants, are hired instead.

I repeat, jobs are jobs. It is the businesses and the industries that may change, not the skills needed for the jobs. Let’s get back to thinking of workers as offering a service in exchange for a fair wage, instead of trying to play specific knowledge sets and specific personal backgrounds against each other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some things never change. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 9, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As much as I'd like to, I cannot pin much of my hope on the Green Jobs Act; 241 to 172 is only about a 58% majority, so unless Congress grows a spine soon, the bill will be successfully vetoed by BushCorp.

Corporations that are converting, finger-in-the-political-wind, to a "green" mentality will do what they do best, once again: move production to sweatshops in China, or here, if they can keep that steady flow of immigrants coming over our southern border. Also, keep in mind that installation and maintenance jobs for green technology will not save the middle class, just as installation and maintenance jobs for current technology does not. The real job creation will be in manufacturing products to be sold around the world – an area in which the Europeans and Japanese are way ahead of us.

Once again, U.S. corporations, dragged kicking and screaming into a new reality, will not react until they can figure out how to maximize profits. Some things will never change – until the grassroots rises up, realizes how its been screwed by consumerism brainwashing, and rejects what corporations continue to force-feed us.

Start now. Consume little; buy local.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More details
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 9, 2007 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The UC Berkeley / RAEL report mentioned by Belli - "Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?" - is here (pdf - updated in late 2006).

An expansion by Elisa Wood (here) on the RAEL report reinforces this conclusion: "Renewable energy creates more jobs than fossil fuel whether measured by power installed, energy produced or dollars invested."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Replace all nuclear, coal, ng, biofuel, and oil
Posted by: channing on Nov 9, 2007 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The valid research at www.trecers.net is focused on replacing the energy of one part of the world, but the calculations already show clearly that existing technology to convert 1/700th of the solar energy absorbed by the planet's deserts can by itself replace all other sources of energy at current levels. That is without including wind, geothermal or wave generation.

Folks, this is such a no-brainer, and the solution is kept out of articles commonly circulated as the dinosaur-fuel industry tries to fill up it's coffers during its dying, queezing last breath. No energy company in the US, no press coverage from corp media, Gore, everyone here fails to give notice to the fact that we already solved the energy crisis!

The people around who survive the virtually inevitable next mass-extinction, thanks to unrestrained greed and concentrated power will look back at the complete waste of human potential in our current age with, "sure grateful we evolved".

Though the article does a disservice to the real green revolution and its potential in economic/environmental restoration, the point is not lost in that green is good and necessary for any realistic future to even occur.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Because they're not green. The future, the future!
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 9, 2007 8:41 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beck: people in the future aren't the kindly parents, willing to
take on our burdens, that you seem to assume.
Asteroid Miner: What burdens? There is no nuclear waste. It is
fuel that needs to be reprocessed that foolish people are wasting
because of coal company propaganda. Do you own a coal mine?

Beck: Or maybe you don't care?
Asteroid Miner: I care very much. Don't YOU care? Didn't you
see my post about human extinction in about 200 years if we stay
on the curve we are on now? What part of the word "extinction"
don't you understand? C-O-A-L is the killer. NUCLEAR power
can save us, both from extinction and from a collapse of
civilization because of a lack of electricity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Nuclear jobs are not green because they're finite and they polute radioactivity:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 9, 2007 9:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
channing: Nuclear power plants do not produce green house gas,
but that is the extent of the green impact, and while you eliminate
CO2 in energy production, instead you produce radioactive waste.
Today, after some 40+ years and 10's of billions of dollars
invested in research, nuclear waste has no known solution for
realistic, reasonable or safe disposal or reuse,

Asteroid Miner: Funny how we used to recycle/reprocess nuclear
fuel until it became politically incorrect. Also, didn't you read
above that coal fired power plants put enough uranium into their
smoke and cinders to fully fuel a nuclear plant, and 500 times over
if breeding thorium into uranium and U238 into plutonium is
allowed? Coal fired power plants are giving you 100 times as
much radiation as nuclear plants, and NATURAL background
radiation is giving you 10 times as much as the coal fired power
plant.

channing: unless you consider Depleted Uranium Weapons
green!.

Asteroid Miner: You don't know what depleted uranium is.
Depleted uranium has never been near a reactor. Depleted
uranium is the U238 that was separated out in the enrichment
process. Our army thinks DU weapons are green because they
prevent the repair of enemy tanks. Tank duels used to be
repeated daily for weeks as the same 2 tanks could duel every day
and get repaired every night.

channing: "finite" is indeed the fate of dependency for any
"fossil" fuel...
Solar, wind, geothermal, wave and possibly H3... these are green,
our money time and talents need to be directed there.

Asteroid Miner: We have many centuries worth of uranium,
thorium and plutonium. In that time, perhaps YOU can invent a
hydrogen fusion machine. So did you get your post doc degree in
Physics yet? As for solar, wind, geothermal and wave, go ahead
and invest YOUR money. I am in favor of them, but they are not
enough, not efficient enough, expensive, not where we need them,
not WHEN we need them, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Replace all nuclear, coal, ng, biofuel, and oil
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 9, 2007 9:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
channing: existing technology to convert 1/700th of the solar
energy absorbed by the planet's deserts can by itself replace all

Asteroid Miner: Fine. Good So YOU do it! Why aren't you?
Why are you wasting time telling us? You should be getting rich
already.

channing: The people around who survive the virtually inevitable
next mass-extinction,

Asteroid Miner: What part of the word "extinction" don't you
understand? When humans go extinct, there will be ZERO
people left. NO people can survive the extinction of humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Background radiation
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 9, 2007 9:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation from several natural radiation
sources: sources in the Earth and from those sources that are incorporated in our
food and water, which are incorporated in our body, and in building materials and
other products that incorporate those radioactive sources; radiation sources from
space (in the form of cosmic rays); and sources in the atmosphere which primarily
come from both the radon gas that is released from the earth's surface and
subsequently decays to radioactive atoms that become attached to airborne dust
and particulates, and the production of radioactive atoms from the bombardment
of atoms in the upper atmosphere by high-energy cosmic rays. Since 1945 it also
comes from low levels of global radioactive contamination due to nuclear testing.

............shortened.............

Natural background radiation

Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic radiation,
terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose for a
human being is about 2.4 mSv per year. This exposure is mostly from cosmic
radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.

Cosmic radiation

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from
outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei.
This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains
down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and
neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and
electrons.

The dose rate from cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world based
largely on the geomagnetic field and altitude.

Terrestrial sources

Radioactive material is found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil,
rocks, water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for terrestrial
radiation are potassium, uranium and thorium. Each of these sources has been
decreasing in activity since the birth of the Earth so that our present dose from
potassium-40 is about 1⁄2 what it would have been at the dawn of life on Earth.
Some of the elements that make up the human body have radioactive isotopes,
such as potassium-40, so there is also a very small amount of internal radiation.

Radon

Radon gas seeps out of uranium-containing soils found across most of the world
and may concentrate in well-sealed homes. It is often the single largest contributor
to an individual's background radiation dose and is certainly the most variable in
the United States. Many areas of the world, including Cornwall and Aberdeenshire
in the United Kingdom have high enough natural radiation levels that nuclear
licensed sites cannot be built there—the sites would already exceed legal radiation
limits before they opened, and the natural topsoil and rock would all have to be
disposed of as low-level nuclear waste.

............shortened.............

The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of
which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results
from exposure to artificial radiation sources, such as medical X-rays and a small
fraction from nuclear weapons tests.

............shortened.............

Reference:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Background radiation Posted by: matti
I liked the bit about...
Posted by: adp3d on Nov 10, 2007 12:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...not being able to outsource the installation and maintence of green technology. Think again if you believe these will be union jobs with pensions and benefits. They will be in-sourced with workers from Eastern Europe and South Asia, so they have the "opportunity" to make 8 bucks an hour...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This damn old planet---
Posted by: WitchyNy on Nov 11, 2007 12:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It keeps getting in the way---
How can we go GREEN and keep all our goodies? That seems to be the main focus.

How to create energy for all our airplanes and fancy fast status cars and freeways and skyscrapers and big screen TV's and ipods and blackberrys and fancy new clothes and make hamburgers and alcohol and tobacco healthy- and still play golf and be the BIG guys on the planet...

I WANT MY TOYS!!! MOMMY! That's not FAIR!
I HATE you Mommy!

We need to live in small homes with solar energy. We need to use LESS ENERGY. We need to play fair and share our toys.
We need to HONOR our MOTHER.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lotro Power leveling
Posted by: enshia on Nov 11, 2007 11:53 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WoW Powerleveling

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK, this is great but...
Posted by: justic2776 on Nov 12, 2007 3:50 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does this green collar revolution take into account it will take fossel fuels to make all the Green stuff? And has this factored in Peak Oil? How is the economy supposed to rise from the ashes when peak oil is now? and in the very near future we are no longer be focused on buying luxury goods but finding and growing food?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK, this is great but...
Posted by: justic2776 on Nov 12, 2007 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does this green collar revolution take into account it will take fossel fuels to make all the Green stuff? And has this factored in Peak Oil? How is the economy supposed to rise from the ashes when peak oil is now? and in the very near future we are no longer be focused on buying luxury goods but finding and growing food?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's Not Kid Ourselves
Posted by: jende on Nov 15, 2007 1:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we think we don't have to sacrifice anything substantial and can still enjoy "eco-travel", buy overpriced organic food, drive fossil fuel-burning hybrid cars, and drink Fair Trade coffee, we haven't a chance to survive the coming disaster. We certainly "don't have to wear burlap or eat sand" to reverse our decline but we must stop indulging ourselves on useless vacations and fashionable food and drink and riding our solitary fat asses around in pseudo-ecological vehicles with internal combustion engines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]