i'll take your word on it. i just believe that you can't have one without the other thus interlocking to each other. i'm just trying to say why i typed what i did...
You can because neither movement is interlocked. As I said, the green collar economy is about creating an expansive clean energy infrastructure, which focuses on building solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear power plants. It also focuses on reducing carbon emissions from pre-existing carbon sources, and increasing the efficiency of our energy resources.
Eco effectiveness is not at all related to the green collar economy. Eco-effective design is not the same as eco-efficient design; in fact, it completely refutes the idea of eco-efficiency. McDonough and Braungart claim that eco-efficiency asks people to be "less bad" about the environmental impact they have-- that is, consume less, drive less, emit less, etc. They argue that even though we are being efficient, we are still extracting resources and creating excess waste.
This is about designing products which eliminates the concepts of resource extraction and waste altogether. It isn't about efficiency; it is about creating truly recyclable products which can be used and re-used over and over again in a closed-loop system of manufacturing.
This revolution is not dependent upon the green collar economy because it doesn't focus on energy efficiency or rely on an energy infrastructure which doesn't exist to be accomplished.