Remember in the 1970s and 1980s those tree-hugger types with the thoughtful beards and the worn flannel plaid shirts who parroted the phrase “zero population growth”? Not to single out males but it seems that I recall it was a fairly male phenomenon, which may have held appeal beyond environmental reasons.

But whatever about my motherly instincts—the reason I bring this up is that these guys may have been on the right track, without even knowing that the third reason to reduce offspring is that the U.S. allocation for greenhouse gas emissions per person is going to be lower than some other notable due to our rising population if the U.N. climate pack is signed in December. In fact, according to this Reuters story I found a couple of weeks ago, Russian citizens will be able to emit twice as much as American citizens. That’s 3 tons of greenhouse gases per each American citizen versus 5.7 million tons for Russian citizens.

Here’s how some of the other countries stack up according to the story “Rising U.S. population makes 2050 climate cut harder”:

French citizens would have the lowest emissions in 2050, at 1.7 tonnes, since their emissions were less than half Russian or U.S. levels in 1990. Italians would have 1.8 tonnes each, Britons 2.1, Japanese 2.5, Canadians 2.7 and Germans 3.4.

I was interviewing an economist yesterday about the economic forecast for the coming year. He said businesses have to change their assumptions that baby boomers will continuously create demand for goods and homes—from cradle to grave—or at least to grave now. And I think that’s an interesting point on a lot of levels. Obviously given the sheer numbers, U.S. business was not wrong to ramp up to meet boomer demand. What business could not know was that boomers would lose 40% of their 401Ks in a global economic meltdown when most of these WWII babies were looking at retirement brochures.

So there’s a big X factor and that goes for climate change, global warming, and ultimately any federal legislation that addresses that issue and the retooling of American industry. Because of the X factor, the unknown, it’s even more important to study the opinions and options available. It’s not enough to choose a side (pro global warming v. against global warming)—that’s far too simplistic a view to be of any use on such complicated topic. What energy we use, how much and where it comes from is going to change over the next few decades. There are an infinite number of x factors. And just as the environment matters, so do economics. In that vein, here is one well-thought out opinion we found in the Wall Street Journal today.

Time for Inaction on Global Warming

By PETE DU PONT

“Global” and “warming” are perhaps the two most important words used to justify the approaching governmental control of our economy. In reality, global warming is barely occurring: In the 30 years starting in 1977, warming amounted to 0.32 degree Fahrenheit per decade, and in the next hundred years it is estimated to be about half a degree per decade.

A few weeks back on this blog a story was posted about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenging the EPA on the validity of global warming. I waxed on a bit about how if business–or anyone for that matter–wants proof that global warming is real, what’s the problem with providing that proof?

But the battle over global warming is really about money–businesses that do not want to spend the additional money to reduce their respective carbon footprints–and those that have already begun to invest in a cleaner greener future. Of all the various businesses who could oppose global warming, and of all the unlikely canditates to actually support it, utilities are the ones breaking ranks.

Here’s an excerpt of the story from MarketWatch:

Exelon and even some coal-fired power companies such as AEP now find themselves at odds with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by supporting current climate-change legislation.

Besides the chamber, the opposition also includes a small, coal-powered utility cooperatives, refiners such as Valero Energy Corp. and others that face sharply higher expenses for emitting greenhouse gases under current climate-change proposals.

PG&E Corp., parent of Pacific Gas & Electric, California’s biggest utility, was the first to formally break with the chamber.

In a Sept. 18 letter, PG&E Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee cited “fundamental differences” over climate change: We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored.”

Under the Waxman-Markey bill passed in the House in June, the U.S. government would certify 4.6 billion carbon allowances in 2012 at an inflation-adjusted price of $17.46 a ton, placing the value of the U.S. carbon market at $84 billion. That legislation was sponsored by Reps. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Select Committee on Independence and Global Warming, and Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Recently my husband, an environmental scientist, was in Hartford for a workshop. In short, he was interested in learning how natural chemicals would replace manmade chemicals and how that would impact 1) the environment and 2) how he cleans up contaminated properties—best, faster, stronger, cleaner. This is new technology.

Earlier this week I interviewed a local Atlanta developer, Jim Jacoby, who is branching his business out to include alternative energy development. The most interesting technology – to me at least – was plasma arch gasification, which has as its source landfill garbage. In the process, trash is heated to 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, which vaporizes the garbage and then the resulting gas is used to make electricity.

So I’m not really surprised that the U.S. Department of Labor needs to study—and has incorporated $8 million in its budget to do so—to define what the green jobs of the future will be. Or the fact that it doesn’t really know what the current and emerging green collar jobs are.

A recent story on Marketwatch painted a decided blue collar picture of a green jobs future:

Those who defend the hundreds of millions of dollars in the stimulus package Washington has targeted for job training in renewable energy and energy efficiency say new jobs that improve the environment will be plentiful. The jobs most often cited: solar-panel installer, wind-mill technician, hybrid-car mechanic, or fuel-cell manufacturer.

But in fact, the positions most often identified in the limited number of state reports that have been released are for construction workers and low-paying farm workers as well as some other exceedingly traditional blue-collar occupations: HVAC installers, maintenance workers, electricians, carpenters, landscapers, and garbage collectors.

While these low-paying green jobs will be tied to the stimulus package and will likely be the most visible in the near future, I believe that there’s more innovation going on than meets the eye and that green jobs will eventually provide a sustainable source of employment.

There has been a dramatic increase in practice of green architecture, according to the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Business of Architecture: AIA Survey Report on Firm Characteristics, which is conducted every three years to examine issues related to the business practices of AIA member-owned architecture firms.

Fifty percent of architecture firms report green design practices, up from 31% of firms in 2005. Firms with 10 to 49 employees had the biggest gains in green design work, which increased from 48% to 72% in the last three years, according to the survey.