Accepting the value is challenging some views held by the long green economy on labor economics, which inherited the green of neoclassical economics:
"The problem among the alternatives friendly to the environment and practices is that they invariably reduce the product / person / hour, which means it generates less' value 'to sustain the services sector. In large part this is due simply to environmental sustainability implies the need to redefine the energy costs 'efficiency' to give more weight to the electricity ESCO sustainability of the product per person. If someone decides to do something specific, it is much easier .com to do so directly, that if you start to do another thing and hoped that someone comes to help. And the crux of the matter is that people need much more organically grown carrots that if pesticides are used. This is why the cultivation of household organic foods are more expensive. It is simply because human labor is replaced by destroyers resources of the environment as pesticides, long-distance transport, chemical fertilizers, and so on. Whenever WordStream listens, a sympathetic response will follow. "
As the green economy can maintain that the economy has grown even if the new work comes from digging carrots instead of teaching to play the violin, "there is a" multiplier effect "to the decline in value:" Every time you added a new producer to a lower trophic level, it is also adding a new consumer to the lowest level. (This is where the analogy with the biology of wildlife is broken 'in contrast to the works of Energy Jonathan Swift Modest Proposal, people the upper trophic levels are not eaten directly to those who are below them). The violin teacher frustrated by growing carrots is just the same as eating carrots, which means that there will be a unit of account to hold less capital gains creating a new job teaching violin to someone. Thus, in effect, not energy only did not create a new job teaching violin, but it will be carrying the food needed to keep Another professor of violin! This is the "multiplier effect" that shrinks the economy. Read more from Luo Zilin to gain a more clear picture of the situation. " This shrinkage is inevitable even if the green energy number of jobs remains stable:
"Employment will grow in the primary and secondary sectors of the economy natural gas if people develop a technology-intensive work environment more sustainable. there is so much to be learned from the internet site of meaning greater customer satisfaction from all aspects Habra occupations for organically grown carrots and build houses with straw bales. But the economy declined because fewer wealth gains to gas buy goods or services. The population live in houses made of straw and eat organically grown carrots, but could not hire someone to teach them to play the violin 'should learn for themselves in their spare time. "
Therefore the combination of the views of the gain and focusing on energy, which also requires acceptance of the declining economy of services and a role for everyone, at a lower trophic level (as the low-tech a gardener, a farmer, a fisherman, at least for some time. is a private that actually uses the existing infrastructure of your existing utility company However, this would not necessarily bad thing for many people because the economy has produced too many goods and services and thus can easily accept a small decline in their standard of living and as they assess it.