Tech Companies Ramping Up the Green Jobs [INFOGRAPHIC]

Wanna be really green? Keep your phone for 5 years. Keep that old car for 10 years. Repair shoes, darn socks, patch pants, and otherwise reduce what you buy. No matter how green a new product is, it's got a WAY bigger carbon footprint than what you already own.

The people who were at solyndra are looking for a new job.

increased life cycle of products : funny , very funny !

more #$%$ from these li#$%$

The headline could more accurately say: "Tech Companies Sucking Up "Green" Government Subsidies"

Yes and you will be expected to be Politically Correct... If they really want to be green stop introducing products with only slight improvements, wait until you really have something new and then go to market. We would have far less electronic junk accumulating and thus less pollution from people and companies upgrading every 6 months for bragging rights.

IBM, Apple, Google, Dell, Nokia, ... all offshore jobs and work to countries that have little respect for the planet or people. And they are hiring for green jobs why? Oh right, for PR purposes.

Liberal thinking: solar panels are good for the environment. Facts, China produces more than 90 percent of the worlds solar panels, they strip mine to get the materials, we are hardly self reliant buying products from China instead of the middle east. Solar panels are HIGHLY toxic to the environment when used up.

Before you people think about taking a green job, look what happed to Solyndra ! They went bankrupt because their product was to expensive to be purchased by the middle and lower class (majority of people.) So here's a message to you greeners out there ! Make a product that's more dependable, cheaper, and reliable than coal and oil, or we're not interested !

If we put the same investment into sustainable energy as we did into the Apollo program, we could be energy independent in a decade. We should have started in the 1980's, but it is not too late. There is a government program that helps solar panel installation. One panel is now running my hot water heater. When I get that one paid off, I will put in another. My goal is to be a self-reliant as possible. Don't you conservative types promote self-reliance?

yahoo- a schill for our President.......he has given the memo to friendly media, promote me, promote me, promote me. do not talk about the debt that we can not repay.

You could say a bike messenger is a green job, but whose gonna wait for them to ride across country to deliver what you might have ordered all the way from another state. After Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, Vesta wind recently laying off over 2,000 people. It’s clear that their really isn’t much of a green economy. I’ve seen examples of Europe’s energy policy. I’m surprised they’re not in revolt. It's amazing they even call it a green job, as most of the consumer products they sell will end up thrown away in just a year or two. More money spent on green energy job creation means less money spent on everything else. How many jobs might be lost to that dynamic alone? Again, these reports don't say. The implicit answer seems to be, "none." This strikes us as unlikely. Economist Gabriel Calzada examined green energy mandates in Spain and found that 2.2 jobs were lost for every green job that was created in that country, the loss in jobs came from the loss of money (needed to pay for more expensive energy that other wise would have been spent elsewhere).

Jobs in the high output technology center such as chips, computers, phones, automobiles will migrate where the energy happens to be cheapest. Even if that were possible, the notion that the equipment would be manufactured in the US to any significant extent is fantasy. China and other low labor cost nations have mastered the business of manufacturing just any unpatented solar or wind powered gizmo. Why would anyone believe they can’t do it in the energy devices like solar panels (even if they have to mine thousands of tons of toxic heavy metals to do it, not to mention that the CO2 produced in the manufacture of solar panels works out to be 100-200 grams per kilowatt hour, at least 10 times that of nuclear power and only half that of petroleum). The truth is Germany alone is already nearing completion of 13 Gigawatts of fossil fuel plants, mainly coal-fired, and is planning to build an additional 10 Gigawatts of such plants to meet it's energy demands in order for them to keep operating in an industrial economy.

Every major renewable energy source has drawn criticism from leading environmental groups: hydro for river habitat destruction, wind for avian mortality, solar for desert overdevelopment, biomass for air emissions and soil depletion, and geothermal for depletion and toxic discharges. In China, coal is expected to generate more than 60 percent of the country’s electricity for the foreseeable future and will include nearly 1,000 gigawatts of coal fired power over the next 20 years to keep the factories running. They may have been polite enough to shut them down for the Olympics, fortunatley they won't be hosting again for the forseeable future. So, while China currently has more wind generating capacity than any other country in the world and is expected to add over 100 gigawatts more by 2035, wind power’s share of generation will only meet 5 percent of the country’s total generation and solar generation will not even attain a one percent share. Jobs go where the energy is cheap and taxes low, not places where out of the goodness of their hearts they're willing to spend 2,3, or 4 times as much for the same amount of energy and higher tax rates. The bottom line is that green jobs thinking is overblown. The notion that the US should adopt a policy in which massive amounts of public funds are channeled into the development of renewable energy and related ventures (including individual companies) is seriously flawed, particularly in light of the huge and rapidly increasing national debt and the fact that the Federal Government seems currently incapable of managing it very well.

Like so many other "fads" this whole "Green" thing may start off with a bang and then fizzle big time. The way to go green is with a long term strategy, trial and error research and learn by failing. There is no quick fix and there are always those "unintended consequences."

If you make an electric car that will go from the east coast to the west coast on a single charge and cost less than 20,000 dollars, I'll buy it ! If you make solar, and wind power that's much cheaper than coal based electricty, and has a life expectancy of 50 to 60 years, and cost less than 10.000 dollars I'll buy it ! Otherwise I'm not interested ! Only rich people can afford to go green, and if you are rich, you don't need to go green !

I am still green from exposure to nuclear radiation at the nuclear sites of TVA. My half-life is not calcuable.

another gov entitty

I have a small, vet owned renewable energy company , recieved no help from the government. Don't let instances like Solyndra spoil it for the rest of us.

"Green"....what a scam.

The green economy? Like Solyndra? No thanks.

Change only happens when people want it. Most people don't want to change anything. Green energy is good for us but it tastes bad to everyone just like some medicines. If we really wanted green we would already have it and it would be affordable. The problem is a particular industry chose for us long ago and it has entrenched itself so deep into our society and our minds that we just accept it. I do not choose to accept it. Others do not choose to accept it. Where do you think the carcinogens causing cancers are coming from???? They are coming from products and environments containing or engaging in this industries products. What part of that is acceptable????