What is a green economy????

I was thinking about what is a green job and green economy.

I found a definition of a green job in Time magazine: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1809506,00.html

Basically, any job that pays a 'livable' wage and contributes to helping the environment. This could be a solar energy engineer or an administrative assistant in a 'green' building. So, the definition can be anything the definer cares to define or undefinable. Sounds like a lot of double speak. I am a watershed hydrologist in a climate studies group. Is my job green? We waste a a lot of electricity on large individual offices, many computers, servers, printers, wall mounted display screens, etc. Are workspace is not green. My wage is not so great, borderline livable. My research is building a predictive model based on historical observations to run climate and land use change scenarios into the future. The goal is not to put forward any particular plan but to try and predict results. By the definition in Time my job is not green, but if I was a union light bulb changer, making a change from incandescent lights to cf lights- that might be green. Just more liberal double speak to separate more classes of people to feel disadvantage and victimized.

What is a green economy? 3 books or ideas really started the green movement. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, Paul R. Ehrlich's Population Bomb and Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens paper The Limits to Growth.

The Limits to Growth an effort to model simple world systems through time to run different scenarios to predict outcomes. The main drivers were economic growth, population growth, natural resource depletion, pollution mitigation, etc. The outcomes pointed to social and economic collapse after population growth, resource depletion and runaway pollution. The conclusions were made in 1972. Many critics of the findings have pointed to the fact that the scenarios have not held true to the time lines predicted. Many factors are involved in the failed accuracy. Themain factors are the growth rate in fully industrialized countries has either become stable or negative. Population is 1 of the main drivers in this model and in real world outcomes. The other main misconception was the true scarcity or abundance of natural resources. As prices have inflated over time and technology has become less expensive per unit, the extraction of mineral resources has produced profits in low percentage ores that at the time of the first writing of Limits were not viable resources.

The one conclusion that has not been contested over time is that economies that grow ad infinitum are not sustainable and yield a resource scarcity and runaway pollution followed by population collapse and a lowered standard of living. So, a green economy could be said to be a 0 growth or slightly contracting economy. Then we have it- we were promised the hope a green economy and now we have a green economy. So why do we need a 'stimu-aint' bill, if we have green economy.

I am confused. Please, somebody help explain.

The green elephant wuz here