Van Jones announced his resignation today from the White House Council on Environmental Quality where he has worked in recent months as the "green jobs czar" continuing his efforts to promote green jobs as a solution for many of our environmental, social, and economic problems. He has come under pressure recently regarding past statements viewed as "radical". I think that his resignation is unfortunate. I doubt that it will weaken government initiatives to encourage the growth of a greener, and healthier economy. But I worry that it might, and that this move may signal a greater round of down and dirty politics directed toward this end.
Jones has been portrayed as a radical of late, as a riot-loving, racist communist. There are probably a few connections or comments in his past that he regrets. But this should not have detracted from his work creating hope for the inner city and for people everywhere with better and cleaner jobs and businesses.
I guess the thing I'm wondering is if the pressure against him was about his statements or actions, or really about opposition to efforts to create green jobs, make buildings more energy efficient, and use more renewable energy.
It's hard for me to believe that people can be opposed to such a thing. It's as if someone were to say "I'm opposed to cleaning up the environment and creating jobs for people." Which is the same as: "I am in favor of pollution, and against jobs and economic growth."
What lies ahead still could be an even greater challenge--solving climate change. There is no lack of people who still loudly claim that climate change is not real, that it is a liberal fabrication. It is not. Climate change remains a clear fact and a grave threat to our future, despite efforts to obscure this. Solving climate change is one of the biggest challenges we face today (as well as one of the greatest opportunities to help ourselves and our economy), and a big part of the challenge is political. Opponents to action on climate change like the Waxman Markey bill will throw everything they've got at it in the months ahead. What we are seeing now could be just the start.
What does this mean for the green economy? I'm not sure yet. I've often said that going green is not an issue for one side of the political spectrum or another. Going green is viewed as a moral, economic, and security imperative, and as a business opportunity, by people across the political spectrum. But politics is a dirty game to be sure, so I'm not surprised by the latest events. I just hope that dirty politics does not equate with a dirty, and down, economy
Glenn Croston is the founder of StartingUpGreen.com, helping entrepreneurs and small businesses to start and grow greener businesses, and delivering the Green BizBlast to connect those seeking and selling green products, services, events, and opportunities. He is also the author of "75 Green Businesses You Can Start to Make Money and Make a Difference", and the author of "Starting Green", a nuts and bolts guide to starting and growing a successful green business (Entrepreneur Press, September 2009).
"Im Bad! Im Slick!"--Van Jones--Green Collar Jobs | Fast Company
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 34 Total
September 6, 2009 at 11:10am by Jeff Waufle
"I guess the thing I’m wondering is if the pressure against him was about his statements or actions"
You have to "Wonder"? OGM. Van Jones was a self-proclaimed radical communist.
You did have one thing right on the money, when you asked how could " people can be opposed to such a thing". Those in power on both sides of the aisle are overloading the system to break it down. Killing the US economy in the name of Green anything will kill any chance of innovation and put million more people into poverty. You can't save the world without money. Ask yourself, "How will killing the economic engine of the world save anyone from starvation?"
Politician's for the last 20 years have put us where we are now. Vote them all out, elect constitution loving Patriots that have principles, values, and personal responsibility and your question that doesn't make sense will be answered.
September 6, 2009 at 11:53am by ravi chandran
He blew it
September 6, 2009 at 12:45pm by Yancey Yeargan
The resignation won't mean much to the green economy which will continue anyway. However, I am deeply disappointed that this man was effectively run out of town by a lynch mob in a country that supposedly values diversity and freedom of speech.
September 6, 2009 at 3:55pm by Paul Schaffer
Democrats in the house and Senate have begun to express concern over the consolidation of power by the white house including the creation of over 30 "czars" all appointed without the "normal" senate approval process. Add to that mix, an outspoken public figure with a questionable background and affiliations and it was only a matter of time before the administration was distancing itself from Mr. Jones. So what does that mean for the green movement? Most likely nothing. The governments heavy handed involvement would have likely slowed down innovation not spawned it. At the end of the day- creative minds, free markets and the chance to make a profit will be the momentum that pushes the green movement into the bright new future of energy generation.
September 7, 2009 at 10:21am by J P
His resignation has nothing to do with green jobs or technology. It has everything to do with his public comments and views. He has a right to make his statements no matter how wrong they may be but the public also has a right to demand accountability. Vans problems were of his own making.
As for the future of green jobs, they need to make economic sense. I see the cart being put in front of the proverbial horse on this one. I'm a great advocate of solar & wind power but they need to put the money into a feasible (& affordable) battery or electrical storage technology prior to spending huge sums of money on energy sources that are intermittent at best.
September 7, 2009 at 12:14pm by All Hands Nursing
With Van Jones' pro-environment activities, he would become a natural target for radical right-wing republicans and their big business lords. I would say that some of Van Jones' past statememts were no doubt, overboard and quite unbecoming of a man of his calibre, but this saga is not about those statements. It's about what man stands for - the envoronment and jobs that could benefit the disenfranchised. I think Obama will find an even more qualified and committed pro-environment non-controversial person to assume Van Jones' postion. America shouldn't be distracted at this critical time.
September 7, 2009 at 7:25pm by MockingBird TheWizard
you sound absurd when you say things like "if someone were to say “I’m opposed to cleaning up the environment and creating jobs for people.” Which is the same as: “I am in favor of pollution, and against jobs and economic growth.”" so, the opposite of pro-lifers are pro-death? the opposite of 'save the whales' is 'exterminate all whales'?
what you don't seem to grasp is that there are many ways to achieve a goal, so just because you are against one method does not mean you are against the goal.
you also seem to imply, in that same statement, that jobs are tied to being green. most of the jobs we have have nothing to do with pollution OR being green. let's gets people working first, then we should have the time and funds to worry about being green.
September 8, 2009 at 10:05am by Mike Moore
If the "green" economy has its own legs, can be helped along by incentives, and is achievable, it will flourish. Pinning the hopes and dreams of a sustainable energy economy on the capabilities of a single, unelected individual (with suspect ideology that immediately creates skepticism by a majority of the population) touches on the sarcastic, in my view. This blog smacks of "Woe is me the persecuted" populism and not rational thinking.
September 8, 2009 at 10:15am by Rick Brindle
"Jones has been portrayed as a radical of late, as a riot-loving, racist communist. There are probably a few connections or comments in his past that he regrets. But this should not have detracted from his work creating hope for the inner city and for people everywhere with better and cleaner jobs and businesses."
Are you joking??? Did you even bother to view the videos on YouTube? He said with his own mouth that he was a communist... he made sickening accusations that white people were passing pollution to black people... he called Republicans #$$holes and our last president a crack addict. He signed with his own hand a petition saying 9-11 was an inside job. Most of this he said in 2009!
I consider myself extremely environmentally concerned. He didn't provide ME with any hope. In fact, I was concerned that he was morphing environmentalism to address his own social agenda (which was not his charge). Jones was a senior policy adviser. His words reflect onto the administration. President Obama did the right thing in letting this guy go. His departure will help the green movement.
September 8, 2009 at 10:19am by Ross Wirth
All the news reports I saw leading up to his resignation focused on his past political statements. Not once can I remember hearing anything about his job other than the job title. My understanding is that the initial reporting started with a review of who these czars are since they have been appointed outside the normal cabinet appointment process. Had he gone through the normal appointment process, it is possible the focus would have remained on job duties and where green jobs fit within the broader change initiative.
September 8, 2009 at 10:21am by Michael Clark
The disclaimer at the outset of the article does say that the views expressed in the article are of the blogger, not necessarily of FastCompany. Thanks at least for that.
I will counter that the comment "Climate Change is a clear fact..." is NOT. We are given to belive that the debate is OVER. It is NOT. We are told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humankind is a significant enough cause of Global Warming to warrant drastic action. Consensus means all. There is NOT a consensus on this opinion. There are hundreds of climate scientists who will attest that the trends we are seeing are within expected norms. The Global Warming scare has been used to drive Cap-and-Tax of our economy and force an artificial redistribution of wealth.
The good thing that has come of this debate is a greater awareness that we do need to be better stewards of the environment--and that ought to start on a personal level. But NOT with Cap-and-Tax.
September 8, 2009 at 10:22am by Michael Clark
The disclaimer at the outset of the article does say that the views expressed in the article are of the blogger, not necessarily of FastCompany. Thanks at least for that.
I will counter that the comment "Climate Change is a clear fact..." is NOT. We are given to believe that the debate is OVER. It is NOT. We are told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humankind is a significant enough cause of Global Warming to warrant drastic action. Consensus means all. There is NOT a consensus on this opinion. There are hundreds of climate scientists who will attest that the trends we are seeing are within expected norms. The Global Warming scare has been used to drive Cap-and-Tax of our economy and force an artificial redistribution of wealth.
The good thing that has come of this debate is a greater awareness that we do need to be better stewards of the environment--and that ought to start on a personal level. But NOT with Cap-and-Tax.
September 8, 2009 at 10:40am by Joe Harder
It's interesting, because I just read an M.B.A. final paper that covered Van Jones' "The Green-Collar Economy," and the student, while giving the author credit for some interesting ideas, was quite turned off by the rhetoric and extremism that he perceived in Jones. This had nothing to do with statements about 9/11 or Republicans, which are apparently what doomed Jones for now. I've heard him speak, and he's certainly charismatic and inspiring to the right audience. The national platform is just too ossified and bi-partisan I think.
September 8, 2009 at 11:11am by carter anderson
His removal will help the green movement. The issue is not a right wing/left wing issue - It is a personal responsibility. Jones made this political. Jones made this an "Us vs them" situation. He started the game - people like Beck are smarter players and crushed him. The real issue is why would Obama even hire Jones in the first place. There are dozens of real green fighters that are just as smart that will be far more effective because they dont pick fights with the other side.
September 8, 2009 at 11:15am by carter anderson
His removal will help the green movement. The issue is not a right wing/left wing issue - It is a personal responsibility. Jones made this political. Jones made this an "Us vs them" situation. He started the game - people like Beck are smarter players and crushed him. The real issue is why would Obama even hire Jones in the first place. There are dozens of real green fighters that are just as smart that will be far more effective because they dont pick fights with the other side.
September 8, 2009 at 11:33am by Travis Price
I created an immense number of "green jobs" in the early 1970's with the Tennessee Valley Authority. We installed with all local labor over 1000 solar hot water heaters in Memphis within 9 months of the announcement. Numerous other green jobs were equally initiated. This was all under the Carter years with Dave Freeman. It wasn't political at all, it was simply creative private financing with public backing. Put simply, green wash approaches have to get one thing clear. People are not interested in saving $10 - $50 bucks a month per say, they are much more interested when the green application is financed in a similar way as phones and utilities and most importantly if they have a "green job" that pays them $3K a month. JOBs are the major incentive we need now, not neccessarily feel good $5 savings or climate change fear rhetoric remedial socialist populist jabber. Its the jobs!
September 8, 2009 at 11:59am by Michael Clark
The disclaimer at the outset of the article does say that the views expressed in the article are of the blogger, not necessarily of FastCompany. Thanks at least for that.
I will counter that the comment "Climate Change is a clear fact..." is NOT. We are given to believe that the debate is OVER. It is NOT. We are told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humankind is a significant enough cause of Global Warming to warrant drastic action. Consensus means all. There is NOT a consensus on this opinion. There are hundreds of climate scientists who will attest that the trends we are seeing are within expected norms. The Global Warming scare has been used to drive Cap-and-Tax of our economy and force an artificial redistribution of wealth.
The good thing that has come of this debate is a greater awareness that we do need to be better stewards of the environment--and that ought to start on a personal level. But NOT with Cap-and-Tax.
September 8, 2009 at 12:46pm by Richard Becker
He has blamed his forced resignation on a "smear" campaign. How interesting. He has been discredited because his past actions were so clearly irresponsible. And very partisan. He is "betrayed" by his own behavior. He has no one to blame but himself. How he can say he did not subscribe to the paranoia that drove that 9/11 petition---then why did he associate himself with it ?
September 8, 2009 at 1:13pm by Richard Becker
He has blamed his forced resignation on a "smear" campaign. How interesting. He has been discredited because his past actions were so clearly irresponsible. And very partisan. He is "betrayed" by his own behavior. He has no one to blame but himself. How he can say he did not subscribe to the paranoia that drove that 9/11 petition---then why did he sign it ?
September 8, 2009 at 1:15pm by Richard Becker
He has blamed his forced resignation on a "smear" campaign. How interesting. He has been discredited because his past actions were so clearly irresponsible. And very partisan. He is "betrayed" by his own behavior. He has no one to blame but himself. How he can say he did not subscribe to the paranoia that drove that 9/11 petition---then why did he sign it ?
September 8, 2009 at 2:31pm by Mr. Lucas Brice
Van Jones "portrayed" as a radical? Wake the f- up. Naive leftist political commentary like this is the reason that I didn't renew when my subscription expired.
September 8, 2009 at 2:33pm by Peter Alexander
I think it would be wise to define this issue, along with the other "czars" using a word in the Fast Company banner - leadership. Everyone makes mistakes, especially in their youth (I have at least 17 dozen myself). But the key issues for me were communication, agenda, and plan. It wasn't that he had good ideas. I'm sure he did. It was the uncensored videos causing many of us to wonder, based on his statements, what are the agenda and plans from the Obama administration. The same is true about statements from Mark Lloyd (Hugo Chavez' taking over the media and news in Venezuela), and Cass Sundstein.
Smart and wise are two different things.
I voted for Mr. Obama and I'm concerned about these choices and the kind of change he may be trying to seek and his method of doing it.
Leadership = Communication.
"What is your plan, Mr. President?" is a fair question.
If Mr. Jones had formulated a plan that the President approved, and then the President made an address to the nation introducing Mr. Jones and the plan, that would have been different.
But the President didn't do that.
Like the bail-out bill for Wall Street, and now health care, legislation is being pushed through with no one reading it and the American people not knowing the decades long consequences of it.
Leadership. Communication. Agenda. Plan.
Let me point out another consequence.
The Left fiercely demonized President Bush, with members of both Congress and the nightly news media (usually on MSNBC) frequently calling him a "liar" night after night.
When national media goes beyond news and editorial to viewscasting (which mixes the two) then the prolonged impact is to create a distrust in Americans of their leadership, regardless of the party.
Respect is an important word in media and news. When people disagree with a position and if happens to be your position, respond respectfully without resorting to childish, undisciplined responses of name calling against those who disagree with your position.
Peter Alexander
September 8, 2009 at 2:34pm by Mr. Lucas Brice
Because of leftist commentary like this, the execs at Fast Company are going to wake up one day and wonder why people have stopped subscribing. I didn't renew my subscription for that reason.
September 8, 2009 at 4:07pm by Chuck Durang
Much as I deplore the "politics of personal destruction," when practiced either from the right or the left, I can't imagine that Mr. Jones's own words do not convict him on several counts of anti-Americanism. Are you implying that any members of FC's editorial staff believe that 9-11 was concocted or encouraged by the Bush White House?
September 8, 2009 at 4:07pm by Chuck Durang
Much as I deplore the "politics of personal destruction," when practiced either from the right or the left, I can't imagine that Mr. Jones's own words do not convict him on several counts of anti-Americanism. Are you implying that any members of FC's editorial staff believe that 9-11 was concocted or encouraged by the Bush White House?
September 8, 2009 at 9:33pm by What Now
The Green Economy isn't going to suffer with the departure of Van Jones. While I believe that Van Jones is well meaning, he is a bit misguided. For example, in Oakland he started a foundation to teach "disenfranchised minority young people" how to install solar panels. Unfortunately, they will likely still be left behind in the Green Job market because the adults he focused on don't have high school diplomas and/or are felons. They will still remain at the bottom of the list when it comes to finding work. In the bay area particularly when 3 out of 5 workers has at least one college degree, it becomes very difficult for those without one to compete in the job market for jobs that pay a living wage. Helping young people is admirable but it would have been good to focus on getting helping them finish high school or get a GED, attend college or technical school for at least 2 years to get a degree or certification and teach them how to dress and behave appropriately in the work place. I am a minority myself and it is time that people stop acting like being educated and civil is a "white" experience. It is the experience of "successful human beings."
September 8, 2009 at 9:33pm by What Now
The Green Economy isn't going to suffer with the departure of Van Jones. While I believe that Van Jones is well meaning, he is a bit misguided. For example, in Oakland he started a foundation to teach "disenfranchised minority young people" how to install solar panels. Unfortunately, they will likely still be left behind in the Green Job market because the adults he focused on don't have high school diplomas and/or are felons. They will still remain at the bottom of the list when it comes to finding work. In the bay area particularly when 3 out of 5 workers has at least one college degree, it becomes very difficult for those without one to compete in the job market for jobs that pay a living wage. Helping young people is admirable but it would have been good to focus on getting helping them finish high school or get a GED, attend college or technical school for at least 2 years to get a degree or certification and teach them how to dress and behave appropriately in the work place. I am a minority myself and it is time that people stop acting like being educated and civil is a "white" experience. It is the experience of "successful human beings."
September 8, 2009 at 10:23pm by Rich Hall
As Jeff Waufle said - The man is an admitted communist.
A better question is "What did Van Jones Mean for the Green Economy?" Placing a "Czar" in charge of economics is to completely disregard the laws (not suggestions) of supply and demand. Anything the man would have attempted to achieve was doomed to fail, because of a lack of economic incentives.
Van Jones was not interested in a Green Economy, he was interested in redistribution of wealth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlOv8RCkcXE&e
Create a green economy in the context of supply and demand, and we will have a green economy. Amen, comrades.
September 8, 2009 at 10:38pm by Rich Hall
Re: by Yancey Yeargan
"...I am deeply disappointed that this man was effectively run out of town by a lynch mob in a country that supposedly values diversity and freedom of speech."
This guy wasn't just somebody speaking his mind, or volunteering to help a cause. He was a governmental "czar" - an appointed, non-elected official with potential power to inflict change on the greatest country this earth has ever witnessed. Keep in mind, "change" is simply "different." The direction of change can be good, bad or indifferent. Look around. Change toward communism has failed everywhere it has been tried, yet liberals still think utopia can be had, free of charge.
September 8, 2009 at 10:45pm by Rich Hall
As I get off of my soapbox, I will further concur with several who have already posted their comments of disapproval about this particular "FC Expert Blog." I considered ending my subscription. No doubt if I see more of this type of anti-capitalist thinking, I won't think twice again about doing so.
November 18, 2009 at 1:41am by Jim pedd
White House environmental adviser Van Jones resigned late Saturday after a simmering controversy over his past statements and activism erupted into calls for his ouster from Republican leaders on Friday.
best credit report protection
January 23, 2010 at 11:12pm by Jonah Reynolds
Interesting. It is well past time the United States government aggresively pursue green buildings.
Remember, its not only who you vote for, but how you spend your money.
--
www.earthship.com