A Green perspective on Occupy St. Louis.

The Green Party of St. Louis endorses, marches with, and is a part of Occupy St. Louis and the global Occupy movement. We, the 99%, must have jobs and economic security that the 1% is destroying. But there must be jobs without leaving a burnt-out, mined-out, radioactive and chemically-contaminated planet. The Green Party advocates ...

Jobs without Environmental Destruction!

The only way to preserve the Earth for future generations is to halt economic growth. Every effort to stimulate the economy is a call to destroy Life. This is a Green Party perspective on how we can create jobs, shrink the economy, and preserve the environment.

We can combine economic and environmental sanity if we have a shorter work week--a much shorter work week. Why should some be forced to work 40, 50 or 60 hours a week while watching their neighbors be unemployed and their children's asthma get worse from the pollutants created by over-production?

We need to produce different things--not more things. Everyone should have medical care, housing, food and education. The amount that the 1% squanders on what we do not need vastly exceeds the cost of what is important.

A Green economy would create things that we need (instead of useless junk) and things that endure (instead of being designed to fall apart or become out of style). It would not build things that are designed to kill other people in order to steal their oil (or corner the world's oil market). If we stop producing things that are useless, fall-apart or are socially destructive, there will be no need for mining, manufacturing and transportation at anywhere near current quantities.

This is the only way to stop poisoning the air, land and water. Solar panels, wind power, energy saving devices and "green" products can only be helpful if they are part of an overall goal of producing less. An economy of infinite growth would require more fossil fuel to build and expand "alternative" energy than would be saved by their use. What is the value of having cars that are 20% more energy efficient if the number of cars on the road and miles driven increase by 30%? Wouldn't it make more sense to build walkable/bikeable communities where people can get to where they need to go without cars?

Economic growth is not bringing us better lives. If we work at a more frantic pace to produce twice as many...