| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Geology Forum » 5216 job openings for environmental consultants
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Bolaleman |
 Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Searching the web i found actually 5216 job openings for environmental
consultants and 226 brand new job job vacancies. Have a look at
http://2ajobguide.com/jobs_USA.aspx and just type in the search field
"environmental consultant". If you want to refine your search you also
can use your zip code or city/state name. It is also possible to
subscribe to a email job alert list where new job vacancies in your
region are daily mailed to you. Best of all: it's a completely free
service. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jo Schaper |
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
don findlay wrote:
Quote:
The solution is that the exploration industry takes its dollars
offshore and leaves all those job adverts for environmental
consultants behind. Adverts for jobs-but-no-jobs. What way to carry
on is that?
The only way to have a habitable planet to carry on, on.
There is a cheap and dirty way to do things, a preserve
everything/disturb nothing and club lettuce to eat in the cave as you
slowly starve way to do things, and there is a a third alternative --
find the resources, figure out your options, count all the costs,
extract wisely, utilize fully, know your consequences and clean up your
mess as you go/afterward way.
I prefer option three. Yeah, extreme enviro activists are a pain (even
to me). But without someone watching the big picture, figuring out the
technical and engineering solutions to achieve environmental goals,
we'll continue to leave messes to the grandkids. Some people don't care.
I do. That's not greenwashing. That's learning to do more with less, and
with a smaller impact to others. What's bad about that? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| don findlay |
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bolaleman wrote:
Quote: Searching the web i found actually 5216 job openings for environmental
consultants and 226 brand new job job vacancies. Have a look at
http://2ajobguide.com/jobs_USA.aspx and just type in the search field
"environmental consultant". If you want to refine your search you also
can use your zip code or city/state name. It is also possible to
subscribe to a email job alert list where new job vacancies in your
region are daily mailed to you. Best of all: it's a completely free
service.
Environmental (floral/ biological), Health and Safety, Heritage
Issues, are all killing mineral exploration in the 'civilised' world.
There is now more sovereign risk to your invested dollar in this
civilised protectorate than there is in many 'third-world' countries.
The costs of these politically correct add-ons is horrendous.
The problem is that the mining industry directly pays for these
'services'.
The solution is that the exploration industry takes its dollars
offshore and leaves all those job adverts for environmental
consultants behind. Adverts for jobs-but-no-jobs. What way to carry
on is that? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bolaleman |
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 11 abr, 21:06, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Quote: Bolaleman wrote:
Searching the web i found actually 5216 job openings for environmental
consultants and 226 brand new job job vacancies. Have a look at
http://2ajobguide.com/jobs_USA.aspx and just type in the search field
"environmental consultant". If you want to refine your search you also
can use your zip code or city/state name. It is also possible to
subscribe to a email job alert list where new job vacancies in your
region are daily mailed to you. Best of all: it's a completely free
service.
Environmental (floral/ biological), Health and Safety, Heritage
Issues, are all killing mineral exploration in the 'civilised' world.
There is now more sovereign risk to your invested dollar in this
civilised protectorate than there is in many 'third-world' countries.
The costs of these politically correct add-ons is horrendous.
The problem is that the mining industry directly pays for these
'services'.
The solution is that the exploration industry takes its dollars
offshore and leaves all those job adverts for environmental
consultants behind. Adverts for jobs-but-no-jobs. What way to carry
on is that?
Your solution looks to me like a fiction as nobody will be able to
stop this "killing mineral exploration in the civilized world" as long
as our industry and society depends on non-sustainable industries like
mining, petroleum etc. I am working as an environmental consultant and
for me it is important to reduce and/or mitigate the environmental
impacts of these industries trying to make them a little bit more
"sustainable and environmentally friendly. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Kepler |
| Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: I prefer option three. Yeah, extreme enviro activists are a pain (even
to me). But without someone watching the big picture, figuring out the
technical and engineering solutions to achieve environmental goals, we'll
continue to leave messes to the grandkids. Some people don't care.
I do. That's not greenwashing. That's learning to do more with less, and
with a smaller impact to others. What's bad about that?
Nothing Jo.....in fact, in the final analysis, it's also the most
cost-effective way to do things. Strip mining coal kinda defined making a
"big mess", and the older strips WERE horrible. Then, about the time the
Gub'mint noticed, coal companies discovered that even half-a$$ed site
reclamation left them with a saleable-usable asset once the coal was
removed. Old Ben Coal Co. in southern Indiana reclaimed huge areas of their
reserve that had been stripped in the 1940's, and formed "Cloverdale Farms"
on what had really been "The Mountains of the Moon" prior to
remediation....and not much better than that before the coal was mined. Old
Ben "relaxed" the original contour, radically improved the drainage,
improved the soil-profile, and made the land more productive than it had
been since the beginning of the Pleistocene! "Cloverdale Farms" at one
point was the largest integrated dairy operation in the state. No one
looking at the Cloverdale operation would have known that such a productive,
pastoral setting had been a massive strip mine! AEP and Consol did similar
work in southeastern Ohio. FWIW, in the long run, "Cloverdale Farms"
arguably made Old Ben/Sohio more money than the coal that was extracted....a
win-win!
ADM is the largest producer of buttercrunch lettuce in the US....produced
hydroponically from the effluent of their ethanol refineries. The lettuce
is the "bio-mass filtration system" for the plant. Again, for a very small
increase in the initial capitalization, ADM gets rid of an obnoxious
waste-stream and produces a high-end product that more than pays for the
entire process. Again....a win-win!
Go to Lowe's and look at a sheet of wallboard. If it's USG board, it's made
from 99+% recycled material. The gypsum is a synthetic material produced by
the limestone neutralization of sulfuric acid out of power-pant sulfur
scrubbers. This syn-gyp not only consumes a material that was land-filled
for decades...but makes a MUCH better wallboard product than quarried/mined
natural gypsum...the paper facing is made from recycled cardboard from your
local grocery store and old newspaper. The only "virgin" material is a
touch of corn-starch to "size" the paper! BTW...the beauty of syn-gyp is
that for every ton of limestone consumed by the power plant....you produce
two tons of syn-gyp, so just that much less environmentally invasive
material is mined! A superior product, lower cost, lower environmental
impact....another win-win!
John |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bolaleman |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 13 abr, 16:13, "John Kepler" <jekep...@amplex.net> wrote:
Quote: I prefer option three. Yeah, extreme enviro activists are a pain (even
to me). But without someone watching the big picture, figuring out the
technical and engineering solutions to achieve environmental goals, we'll
continue to leave messes to the grandkids. Some people don't care.
I do. That's not greenwashing. That's learning to do more with less, and
with a smaller impact to others. What's bad about that?
Nothing Jo.....in fact, in the final analysis, it's also the most
cost-effective way to do things. Strip mining coal kinda defined making a
"big mess", and the older strips WERE horrible. Then, about the time the
Gub'mint noticed, coal companies discovered that even half-a$$ed site
reclamation left them with a saleable-usable asset once the coal was
removed. Old Ben Coal Co. in southern Indiana reclaimed huge areas of their
reserve that had been stripped in the 1940's, and formed "Cloverdale Farms"
on what had really been "The Mountains of the Moon" prior to
remediation....and not much better than that before the coal was mined. Old
Ben "relaxed" the original contour, radically improved the drainage,
improved the soil-profile, and made the land more productive than it had
been since the beginning of the Pleistocene! "Cloverdale Farms" at one
point was the largest integrated dairy operation in the state. No one
looking at the Cloverdale operation would have known that such a productive,
pastoral setting had been a massive strip mine! AEP and Consol did similar
work in southeastern Ohio. FWIW, in the long run, "Cloverdale Farms"
arguably made Old Ben/Sohio more money than the coal that was extracted.....a
win-win!
ADM is the largest producer of buttercrunch lettuce in the US....produced
hydroponically from the effluent of their ethanol refineries. The lettuce
is the "bio-mass filtration system" for the plant. Again, for a very small
increase in the initial capitalization, ADM gets rid of an obnoxious
waste-stream and produces a high-end product that more than pays for the
entire process. Again....a win-win!
Go to Lowe's and look at a sheet of wallboard. If it's USG board, it's made
from 99+% recycled material. The gypsum is a synthetic material produced by
the limestone neutralization of sulfuric acid out of power-pant sulfur
scrubbers. This syn-gyp not only consumes a material that was land-filled
for decades...but makes a MUCH better wallboard product than quarried/mined
natural gypsum...the paper facing is made from recycled cardboard from your
local grocery store and old newspaper. The only "virgin" material is a
touch of corn-starch to "size" the paper! BTW...the beauty of syn-gyp is
that for every ton of limestone consumed by the power plant....you produce
two tons of syn-gyp, so just that much less environmentally invasive
material is mined! A superior product, lower cost, lower environmental
impact....another win-win!
John
John, nice example of what is a "sustainable" industry. I think this
is the way we need to think much more in the future and many companies
are already thinking and performing in this direction. Unfortunately,
the traditional mining industry is still needed as we cannot recycle
100% of all material and our system depends on growth - which means
that year by year we need more steel, more concrete, etc. And growth
cannot be based 100% on recycled material. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jo Schaper |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bolaleman wrote:
Quote: On 13 abr, 16:13, "John Kepler" <jekep...@amplex.net> wrote:
I prefer option three. Yeah, extreme enviro activists are a pain (even
to me). But without someone watching the big picture, figuring out the
technical and engineering solutions to achieve environmental goals, we'll
continue to leave messes to the grandkids. Some people don't care.
I do. That's not greenwashing. That's learning to do more with less, and
with a smaller impact to others. What's bad about that?
Nothing Jo.....in fact, in the final analysis, it's also the most
cost-effective way to do things. Strip mining coal kinda defined making a
"big mess", and the older strips WERE horrible. Then, about the time the
Gub'mint noticed, coal companies discovered that even half-a$$ed site
reclamation left them with a saleable-usable asset once the coal was
removed. Old Ben Coal Co. in southern Indiana reclaimed huge areas of their
reserve that had been stripped in the 1940's, and formed "Cloverdale Farms"
on what had really been "The Mountains of the Moon" prior to
remediation....and not much better than that before the coal was mined. Old
Ben "relaxed" the original contour, radically improved the drainage,
improved the soil-profile, and made the land more productive than it had
been since the beginning of the Pleistocene! "Cloverdale Farms" at one
point was the largest integrated dairy operation in the state. No one
looking at the Cloverdale operation would have known that such a productive,
pastoral setting had been a massive strip mine! AEP and Consol did similar
work in southeastern Ohio. FWIW, in the long run, "Cloverdale Farms"
arguably made Old Ben/Sohio more money than the coal that was extracted.....a
win-win!
ADM is the largest producer of buttercrunch lettuce in the US....produced
hydroponically from the effluent of their ethanol refineries. The lettuce
is the "bio-mass filtration system" for the plant. Again, for a very small
increase in the initial capitalization, ADM gets rid of an obnoxious
waste-stream and produces a high-end product that more than pays for the
entire process. Again....a win-win!
Go to Lowe's and look at a sheet of wallboard. If it's USG board, it's made
from 99+% recycled material. The gypsum is a synthetic material produced by
the limestone neutralization of sulfuric acid out of power-pant sulfur
scrubbers. This syn-gyp not only consumes a material that was land-filled
for decades...but makes a MUCH better wallboard product than quarried/mined
natural gypsum...the paper facing is made from recycled cardboard from your
local grocery store and old newspaper. The only "virgin" material is a
touch of corn-starch to "size" the paper! BTW...the beauty of syn-gyp is
that for every ton of limestone consumed by the power plant....you produce
two tons of syn-gyp, so just that much less environmentally invasive
material is mined! A superior product, lower cost, lower environmental
impact....another win-win!
John
John, nice example of what is a "sustainable" industry. I think this
is the way we need to think much more in the future and many companies
are already thinking and performing in this direction. Unfortunately,
the traditional mining industry is still needed as we cannot recycle
100% of all material and our system depends on growth - which means
that year by year we need more steel, more concrete, etc. And growth
cannot be based 100% on recycled material.
However, growth is finite, and economic success is only dependent upon
increased growth in materials use if we say so. For example: there has
been explosive growth in mobile telecommunications. As a kid, I dropped
my grandma's Western Electric all metal telephone on my foot, and
injured it fairly badly. That phone weighed more than dozens and dozens
of those little Razr flip phones put together. How many thousand laptops
would it take to make up the bulk of Univac (and with more computing
power in a single one?) There will always be a need for some new
material into a production stream, I think, and some prohibitively high
recovery costs, (who invented the juice box that melts plastic, aluminum
and paper together?) but Americans are simply lousy at recycling
(especially metal and stone derived resources like glass) compared to
Europe, and Europe is nowhere near the realistic limit.
There is a limit to how far a human powered vehicle can go in one day,
and we have needs to travel beyond that (or think we do.) But a person
can get from Chicago to Denver in a personal jet, a 747, on a train (not
Amtrak, a train we actually put some thought into)in a 2 ton SUV, or a
Minicooper. Or, many times, we could just call the person on the flip
phone, save the trip, and transmit the information faster. The goal is
to get from point A to point B...there are all sorts of ways to solve
the problem.
A mining industry is still needed. But maybe not the traditional one.
How many auto salvage yards are there in the US? Unless we mine the auto
salvage yards (before the resource crumbles to rust)we're not out of steel.
I won't believe in an actual oil shortage (as opposed to an economic
one) until most major companies ditch the plastic food-grade bottle and
jar (What a waste, when there still is a virtually inexhaustible supply
of cheap sand.) [side note: Saturday night we were in the grocery store,
where a local organic dairy was selling milk (gasp!) in returnable glass
half-gallons. There were directions on the bottle how to handle a glass
milk bottle, and that if broken it could cut you. God save us from label
lawyers. Earlier that day, we were at a winery party. As we gathered up
the empties, (still glass) I asked the owner where to put the bottles,
and he said, "We're not allowed to recycle them." Well, maybe not reuse
them on site without proper sanitizing equipment, but it's not illegal
to recycle wine bottles.]
In point of fact, I know of a US iron mine which is mothballed with 90%
of its iron intact. Why? Imported Chinese iron. The folks on the UP of
Michigan made the point to us that there are still substantial copper
reserves there: and yet when my husband turns in our scrap metal, he has
to show an ID and sign a statement that he didn't steal the metal.
(Recycling by thievery-- there is money in it, so they do it.)
I'm waiting for some bright kid (likely will be a kid, because some
elders are so set in their ways they'll not see the breakthrough) to
figure out an economic way to turn CO2 exhaust into carbonate building
material or pump it into our soda pop. The heck with sequestration.
Let's recycle the stuff and make money doing it! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Aidan Karley |
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <0ad4258f-f828-46f9-9706-
acf29d2da942@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Bolaleman wrote:
Quote: And growth
cannot be based 100% on recycled material.
Growth is what will eventually break *any* system. Be it growth
in population or growth in /per capita/ resource consumption.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bolaleman |
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 16 abr, 02:00, Aidan Karley <name1_na...@email.provider.invalid>
wrote:
Quote: In article <0ad4258f-f828-46f9-9706-acf29d2da...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,Bolalemanwrote:
And growth
cannot be based 100% on recycled material.
Growth is what will eventually break *any* system. Be it growth
in population or growth in /per capita/ resource consumption.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland
Growth WILL break the current world economy system as ongoing growth
in the consumption rate will lead to the exhaustion of natural
reserves and recycling cannot fill the whole gap. The only possibility
(sometimes claimed by the NASA, etc.) would be the search for new
resources on other plants - but this will be science fiction for the
next hundred years at least. The problem with the current system is
that negative growth (= recession) leads to serious social problems
due the lack of investment, employment, public resources, etc. And the
worst: all economic models trying to avoid this dilemma failed in the
past and it seems that nobody still has a clue. On the other hand,
economic problems in the US right now seem to be self-made and
basically result of the adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan and only
partially a problem of a lack of resources. The actual high oil and
mineral prices are of course like adding fuel to the fire. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| SBC Yahoo |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bolaleman" <hulle06@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1540cd74-be83-4776-895c-8c92512c7d8b@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 11 abr, 21:06, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Quote: Bolaleman wrote:
Searching the web i found actually 5216 job openings for environmental
consultants and 226 brand new job job vacancies. Have a look at
http://2ajobguide.com/jobs_USA.aspx and just type in the search field
"environmental consultant". If you want to refine your search you also
can use your zip code or city/state name. It is also possible to
subscribe to a email job alert list where new job vacancies in your
region are daily mailed to you. Best of all: it's a completely free
service.
Environmental (floral/ biological), Health and Safety, Heritage
Issues, are all killing mineral exploration in the 'civilised' world.
There is now more sovereign risk to your invested dollar in this
civilised protectorate than there is in many 'third-world' countries.
The costs of these politically correct add-ons is horrendous.
The problem is that the mining industry directly pays for these
'services'.
The solution is that the exploration industry takes its dollars
offshore and leaves all those job adverts for environmental
consultants behind. Adverts for jobs-but-no-jobs. What way to carry
on is that?
Your solution looks to me like a fiction as nobody will be able to
stop this "killing mineral exploration in the civilized world" as long
as our industry and society depends on non-sustainable industries like
mining, petroleum etc. I am working as an environmental consultant and
for me it is important to reduce and/or mitigate the environmental
impacts of these industries trying to make them a little bit more
"sustainable and environmentally friendly.
- - - - -<><> - - - - -
I have the solution, the planet will support, (lets pick a number), 3.5
billion at a reasonable standard of living. We pick the worst cases over
the 3.5 billion limit, and kill them off, keeping population at 3.5 billion
or below. No problem. If the population does not control growth through
breeding, either war, famine, disease, or simple starvation will. They take
too long, though, do it quickly, and save resources.
This statement was approved by His Royal Highness, (HRH) Pope Benedict
Mining exploration geologists, engineers, metallurgists and process
engineers in mining are in high demand. Starting salaries are over
$100,000/year. Higher than Harvard MBA's, for the first time ever.
Resource replenishment is the reason. China is gobbling up resources at a
faster pace than anyone predicted.
Screw environmental jobs, go for the big bucks in mining. Do the world's
populatin a real favor, supply the minerals they actually need, today.
- - - - -</> <\> - - - - - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bolaleman |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 21 abr, 16:44, "SBC Yahoo" <atilla.the....@liberals.suck.net>
wrote:
Quote: "Bolaleman" <hull...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1540cd74-be83-4776-895c-8c92512c7d8b@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 11 abr, 21:06, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Bolalemanwrote:
Searching the web i found actually 5216 job openings for environmental
consultants and 226 brand new job job vacancies. Have a look at
http://2ajobguide.com/jobs_USA.aspxand just type in the search field
"environmental consultant". If you want to refine your search you also
can use your zip code or city/state name. It is also possible to
subscribe to a email job alert list where new job vacancies in your
region are daily mailed to you. Best of all: it's a completely free
service.
Environmental (floral/ biological), Health and Safety, Heritage
Issues, are all killing mineral exploration in the 'civilised' world.
There is now more sovereign risk to your invested dollar in this
civilised protectorate than there is in many 'third-world' countries.
The costs of these politically correct add-ons is horrendous.
The problem is that the mining industry directly pays for these
'services'.
The solution is that the exploration industry takes its dollars
offshore and leaves all those job adverts for environmental
consultants behind. Adverts for jobs-but-no-jobs. What way to carry
on is that?
Your solution looks to me like a fiction as nobody will be able to
stop this "killing mineral exploration in the civilized world" as long
as our industry and society depends on non-sustainable industries like
mining, petroleum etc. I am working as an environmental consultant and
for me it is important to reduce and/or mitigate the environmental
impacts of these industries trying to make them a little bit more
"sustainable and environmentally friendly.
- - - - -<><> - - - - -
I have the solution, the planet will support, (lets pick a number), 3.5
billion at a reasonable standard of living. We pick the worst cases over
the 3.5 billion limit, and kill them off, keeping population at 3.5 billion
or below. No problem. If the population does not control growth through
breeding, either war, famine, disease, or simple starvation will. They take
too long, though, do it quickly, and save resources.
This statement was approved by His Royal Highness, (HRH) Pope Benedict
Mining exploration geologists, engineers, metallurgists and process
engineers in mining are in high demand. Starting salaries are over
$100,000/year. Higher than Harvard MBA's, for the first time ever.
Resource replenishment is the reason. China is gobbling up resources at a
faster pace than anyone predicted.
Screw environmental jobs, go for the big bucks in mining. Do the world's
populatin a real favor, supply the minerals they actually need, today.
- - - - -</> <\> - - - - -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
It's a reality that 90%+ of the catholics are using anticonceptives
(published in several newspapers not too long ago) and they don't have
a problem with this practice. If HRH Benedict doesn't accept it - well
- that might be due to his 81 years....  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:54 am
|
|