IWW Environmental Unionism Caucus

By Steve Ongerth - IWW Eco Union Caucus, Revised January 16, 2024

Is renewable energy actually green? Are wind, solar, and storage infrastructure projects a climate and/or envi­ronmental solution or are they just feel-good, greenwashing, false "solutions" that either perpetuate the deep­ening climate and environmental crisis or just represent further extractivism by the capitalist class and the privileged Global North at the expense of front-line communities and the Global South? 

This document argues that, while there is no guarantee that renewable energy projects will ultimately be truly "green", there is nothing inherent in the technology itself that precludes them from being so. Ultimately the "green"-ness of the project depends on the level of rank-and-file, democratic, front-line community and working-class grassroots power with the orga­nized leverage to counter the forces that would use renewable energy to perpetuate the capitalist, colonialist, extractivist system that created the cli­mate and environmental crisis in which we find ourselves.

In‌ order to do that, we mustn't fall prey to the misconceptions and inaccuracies that paint renewable energy infrastructure projects as inherently anti-green. This series attempts to do just that. This first Volume, on utility scale wind power addresses several arguments made against it, including (but not limited to) the following misconceptions:

• Humanity must abandon electricity completely;
• Degrowth is the only solution;
• New wind developments only expand overall consumption;
• Wind power is unreliable and intermittent;
• Wind power is just another form of "green" capitalism;
• The extraction of resources necessary to build wind power negates any of their alleged green benefits;
• Wind power is an extinction-level event threat to birds, bats, whales, and other wildlife (and possibly humans);
• Only locally distributed renewable energy arrayed in microgrids should be built without any--even a small percentage--of utility scale wind developments;
• Only nationalized and/or state-owned utility scale renewable energy developments should be built;
• No wind power developments will be green unless we first organize a socialist revolution, because eve­rything else represents misplaced faith in capitalist market forces.

In fact, none of the above arguments are automatically true (and the majority are almost completely untrue). However, they're often repeated, sometimes ignorantly, but not too infrequently in bad faith. This document is offered as an inoculation and antidote to these misconceptions and misinformation.

Download a copy of this publication here (PDF).

By x344543 - IWW Eco Union Caucus, May 27, 2023

Calling for "DeGrowth" without conditions or even "Ecosocialist DeGrowth" is far too vague and could potentially alienate the working class (and no version of socialism, let alone ecosocialism, can be achieved without support of the working class.

Consider the report that the UC Labor Just Released: Fossil fuel layoff - The economic and employment effects of a refinery closure on workers in the Bay Area. This report de­tails the experience of union refinery workers who have lost their jobs at the Martinez

On October 30, 2020, the Marathon oil refinery in Contra Costa County, California, was perma­nently shut down and 345 unionized workers laid off. The Marathon refinery’s closure sheds light on the employment and economic impacts of climate change policies and a shrinking fossil fuel industry on fossil fuel workers in the region and more broadly.

In the aftermath of the refinery shutdown, workers were relatively successful in gaining post-layoff employment but at the cost of lower wages and worse working conditions. At the time of the survey, 74% of former Marathon workers (excluding retirees) had found new jobs. Nearly one in five (19%) were not employed but actively searching for work; 4% were not employed but not look­ing for a job; and the remaining 2% were temporarily laid off from their current job. Using standard labor statistics measures, the post-layoff unemployment rate among Marathon workers was 22.5% and the employment rate was 77.5%. If workers who have stopped actively searching for work were included, the post-layoff unemployment rate was higher at 26%.

Former Marathon workers find themselves in jobs that pay $12 per hour less than their Mar­athon jobs, a 24% cut in pay. The median hourly wage at Marathon was $50, compared to a post-layoff median of $38. A striking level of wage inequality defines the post-layoff wages of former re­finery workers. At Marathon, hourly pay ranged between $30 to $68. The current range extends as low as $14 per hour to a high of $69. Workers reported benefits packages comparable to their pre-layoff Marathon benefits.

Workers found jobs in a range of sectors. The single most common sector of re-employ­ment was oil and gas, where 28% of former Marathon workers found post-layoff jobs but at wages 26% lower than at Marathon. These lower rates of pay stem from loss of seniority and non-union employment.

Overall, workers reported worse working conditions at their post-layoff jobs, even in higher wage jobs. Workers described hazardous worksites, heavy workloads, work speed-up, increased job responsibilities, and few opportunities for advancement. Above all, workers cited poor safety prac­tices and increased worksite hazards as the most significant and alarming characteristics of degraded working conditions.

Some caveats:

• While this report frames the closure as a result of energy transition in its press releases and in the media, they admit that the refinery really closed due to COVID, although the employer is opportunistically retool­ing the refinery for "renewable biodiesel" (a greenwashing scam, mostly);
• Job losses and retooling happens all the time under capitalism.

This is NOT an example of "DeGrowth" andy more than it is an example of "Decarbonization" or "Energy Transi­tion", because fossil fuel profits are experiencing record and/or near record highs (for a variety of reasons)

By x344543 - IWW Environmental Union Caucus, May 11, 2023

In spite of this book's straightforward sounding title, A Planet to Win, Why We Need a Green New Deal (Verso, 2019), by Kate Aronoff, Alyssa Battistoni, Daniel Aldana Cohen, and The Riofrancos, this relatively short and concise book would be much more accurately titled, "Why we think our version of the Green New Deal is the best one of the lot," because there isn't a single "Green New Deal", but several, as we have noted here on ecology.iww.org. This, however, is not necessarily a negative aspect of this book.

The authors, all of them ecosocialists with a transformative approach, are quick to explain that the particular Green New Deal they seek is one that addresses most critiques of the Green New Deal in general. 

• Would the Green New Deal repeat the mistakes of the original New Deal and exclude BIPOC people? Not the authors' version.
• Would the Green New Deal rely heavily on social democratic Keynesian state intervention? Not the author's version!
• Would the Green New Deal perpetuate endless growth in hubristic ignorance of the natural limits to growth, not if these authors have any say in the matter;
• Would the Green New Deal further the continued exploitation by the Global North of the Global South? Not if the authors have anything to do with it!
• Would the Green New Deal merely be a case of the capitalists saving themselves, with a putatively green branding? Absolutely not, the authors say.

Certainly, if given the choice, that sounds quite good to me. Clearly these authors aren't content with a naive faith that just because something is called a "Green New Deal" it will actually be a good deal.

Fellow Workers!

You are invited to a Zoom meeting.

When: May 28, 2023 07:00 PM Universal Time UTC 

In honor of Judi Bari Day (May 24), the WISERA IWW Environmental Committee and NARA IWW Eco Union Caucus present a showing of the documentary, "Who Bombed Judi Bari?" - https://youtu.be/HWApxvSjMKY and will follow that with a discussion about the film and its relevance to Green Unionism.

Did you know that the bombing that nearly claimed Judi Bari's life was prompted by Redwood Summer?

Did you know that Redwood Summer--which was well known as a radical, albeit nonviolent, environmental uprising--was actually also a continuation of IWW organizing efforts, specifically among timber workers in northwestern California?

Did you now that Judi Bari and her comrades were proposing class struggle environmental unionism and just transition more than three decades ago, long before the current "Green New Deal" framing? It's true! Come watch this documentary with us and find out more about green unionism and how the IWW was one of the early adopters of this essential revolutionary organizing approach.

Register in advance for this meeting:

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZEtc-iopj8rEtHZzkJ35d2nINJedzqA-GR_ 

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

A note on the links in this article:  each of the links elevant to terms listed in this text lead to a whole series of articles, texts, videos, and other media in reverse chronological order, from newest to oldest, and each list is routinely updated.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author.

By x344543 - IWW Environmental Union Caucus, April 6, 2023

As the climate crises deepens and the push to decarbonize the world's energy systems intensifies, a chorus of skeptical and pessimistic voices continually warns against placing hope in renewable energy as a solution (whether partial or wholly), arguing instead for vastly reducing energy consumption (as well as everything else). One of the most commonly invoked pieces of putative evidence made to bolster the argument is the oft cited, but poorly understood concept known as "Jevon's Paradox" (see also Wikipedia for a quick reference).

For example, in an article featured on the degrowth blog, Resilience (run by degrowth advocate Richard Heinberg), "Resources for a better future: Jevons Paradox", author Sam Bliss declares:

In 1865, (English economist William Stanley) Jevons found that as each new steam engine design made the use of coal more efficient, Britain used more coal overall, not less.

These efficiency improvements made coal cheaper, because steam engines, including the ones used to pump water out of coal mines, required less coal to produce a given amount of useful energy. Yet increasingly efficient steam engines made coal more valuable too, since so much useful energy could be produced from a given amount of coal.

That might be the real paradox: the ability to use a resource more efficiently makes it both cheaper and more valuable at the same time.

In Jevons’ time, more and more coal became profitable to extract as more and more uses of coal became profitable. Incomes increased as coal-fired industrial capitalism took off, and profits were continually invested to expand production further.
A century and a half later, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that as industrial processes have gotten more efficient at using dozens of different materials and energy sources, the overall use of these materials and energy sources has grown in nearly every case. The few exceptions are almost all materials whose use has been limited or banned for reasons of toxicity, like asbestos and mercury.

In an economy designed to grow, the Jevons paradox is all but inevitable. Some call it the Jevons phenomenon because of its ubiquity. Purposefully limiting ourselves might provide a way out.

This is by no means the only such example, nor is it even necessarily the most illustrative one, but it perfectly summarizes the all too often careless application of what is an overused and debatable trope.

There are several problems with Jevon’s Paradox and the way in which Bliss presents it:

By staff - Ireland IWW, July 22, 2022

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) has condemned the recent issuing of gold and diamond licences to international prospecting companies by the North of Ireland, Department for Economy. It is estimated that a number of exploration licences have been granted to several companies seeking to prospect in counties Fermanagh and Tyrone.

News came as the Industrial Workers of the World Ireland Branch held its Annual General Conference. Representatives of the IWW Ireland Branch, which brought forward a motion of solidarity to its members, reiterated it's 'opposition to any toxic gold mining in the Sperrins' mountain range stating; 'This motion extends its continued solidarity with the communities in resistance in the Sperrin Mountains in Co. Tyrone, and the continued opposition to Toxic Gold Mining in the region by Canadian multinational Dalradian Gold. In turn the union will continue to campaign and highlight the impact of toxic gold mining.'

An IWW spokesperson said that "The motion was overshadowed by media reports of a number companies (Flintridge Resources, Karelian Diamond Resources and Mount Castle) recently granted prospecting licences. This will undoubtedly see increased prospecting in other counties Fermanagh and Tyrone, an act that the vast majority of local communities would overwhelmingly object to.

"The membership of our union past a motion of our continued support with local communities fighting toxic gold mining in the Sperrins and our opposition to the environmental destruction of our land and that of our communities."

Commenting on the issuing of further prospecting licences by the Department of the Economy, a spokesperson responded stating "We have no doubt the those in power believe that it's open season for welcoming big businesses when it comes to mining in the North West. It's clear that for some, the priorities of profit comes first over the lives of workers and working class communities as well as the destruction of our environment.

"For those who still support or gain financially from those multinational companies profiting from toxic gold mining, yet still turn a blind eye to the impact it will have on all our lives, what more can be said. With the information now gathered and widely available on the devastation toxic mining will cause, our union calls for all mining licences to be immediately withdrawn. Nothing more than the immediate end to toxic mining will be acceptable to our union and that of the local communities who continue to resist and defend the land or environment."

By Steve Ongerth - IWW Environmental Union Caucus, May 25, 2022

For context and background, see part one, here. Unlike the first installment, this second response has ommitted the comments that preciptated it, for the sake of clarity, as well as the fact that the author tried to echo the rebutted points in the response. It should be noted that only one individual has expressed outright opposition to showing solidarity with striking refinery workers. It's a foregone conclusion that the overwhelming majority of the IWW does not share this one individual's view.

First of all, let me be clear: my position is that humanity must collectively phase out burning fossil fuels for energy, transportation, and locomotion as rapidly as possible.

That said, nobody seriously believes we can collectively cease burning fossil fuels in a single day, so the likelihood is that the burning of them will continue for some time (I aim to make that as little time as possible).

Regardless of how long it takes, no oil refinery is going to simply shut down just because large masses of people, even 3.5% of the population demand it. It’s not even technically possible, let alone economically or politically possible. Most of the Environmental Justice and Climate Justice organizations (other than a few ultra-sectarian extremists) get this, and they’ve crafted their demands accordingly.

While there’s a degree of variation among the various organizing, most of them call for the following:

1. No new extraction of new fossil fuel sources;
2. Rapid phase out of existing fossil fuel sources;
3. Managed decline of the existing fossil fuel supply chain;
4. Just transition for any and all affected workers in the entire fossil fuel supply chain;
5. Repurposing of equipment for non fossil fuel burning purposes;
6. Bioremediation of damaged ecosystems across the extraction supply chain;
7. Reparations for the affected communities and tribes.

Supporting refinery workers involved in a strike is not in any way contradictory to the above demands.