green unionism

By Glen Spain - Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, January 2012

Its now time — perhaps long past time — for the world’s fishing industry to collectively take a firm stand against the economic and societal forces creating global warming and its related marine hazard of ocean acidification.

Both of these new phenomenon — rapidly changing climates and more acidic oceans — are expected to hit the world’s fishing industry especially hard. Indeed, they already are starting to do so. A collective response from our industry is much overdue.

What Causes Climate Change?

There is no mystery about how global warming actually works. In fact, it can be easily demonstrated in a high school science lab.

Certain naturally occurring atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) naturally trap heat from the sun near the Earth’s surface, helping to keep our climate hospitable to life. Without that “greenhouse effect” the Earth would be nearly as cold on its surface as the planet Mars, and we would be in a permanent Ice Age.

But when normal background concentrations of these “greenhouse gases” are greatly added to by human sources such as we see today, their natural balance gets out of whack as a result, they can trap too much heat — and over time, since this heating is cumulative, this can change the balance of the whole world’s climate in unpredictable ways.

This is precisely what has been happening since the widespread use of carbon-based fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. This huge ancient carbon sink, long stored harmlessly in the Earth, is today being rapidly burned for energy — and its fossil carbon pumped into our Earth’s atmosphere at an increasing rate. Nearly all this excess carbon dioxide can be traced by its isotopic fingerprints right back to the burning of fossil fuels.

What this global “greenhouse heating” leads to in the long-term, in addition to the heating itself, is the heat-driven disruption of normal weather patterns. Even small net heating changes in the atmosphere can lead to extreme weather disasters.

In some places this weather disruption means excessive and more frequent widespread flooding. In other places this can mean long-term or near permanent droughts in places which rarely experienced such problems in the past. In yet other places, bitter cold waves can last far longer than in the past. This plays hell with key agricultural areas all around the world.

This is why this phenomenon is more correctly called “climate change” rather than just “climate warming.” Some places will warm, others will cool, others will dry out — and most of these changes will occur in the future around statistical “means” that are quite a bit different than what these regions normally experienced in the past. When the annual weather pattern statistical “mean” changes, this is a change in climate itself. Weather is what happens in the single instance or year — climate is what happens statistically most often, described by “mean,” over many years.

Severe Weather Links Are Becoming Plainer: And the linkage between these global heating mechanisms and disastrous droughts, floods, severe weather events and climate extremes is also becoming much clearer, and much easier to statistically distinguish from normal ranges of variation in the past. These last two years, 2010 and 2011, have seen record-breaking extreme weather events worldwide, costing many billions of dollars in economic damages from record floods and droughts, tornadoes and hurricanes, including massive crop failures in many areas. Not surprisingly, 9 out of the world’s 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001, and all 12 of the world’s hottest years on record since 1997.

Worse, global CO2 emissions in 2010 were recorded by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (www.wmo.int, Press Release No. 934) to have jumped upwards by the highest one-year rate ever recorded — about 1.4 percent — since 2009. Record rates of increase also includes two other greenhouse gases — methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which are even more powerful greenhouse gases than CO2, but typically occur at much lower concentrations. Yet even small additional inputs of these more powerful non-carbon greenhouse gases can have exacerbating effects on climate.

But CO2 still accounts for about 80 percent of all observed atmospheric warming. CO2 is also the only major greenhouse gas we humans can do much about, which is why the focus is on this gas and not the others.

By Lene Olsen, et. al. - International Labour Organization, 2012

This issue of the Journal focuses on the question of whether the jobs that are emerging in the efforts to reach sustainable development can be described as “decent”.

A series of case studies is presented which demonstrates that this seems to be far from the case. While these results remain very partial, this should be seen as an important reminder that “green” employment is not decent by definition and that like in any other sector, green jobs require careful stewardship from public authorities to ensure that workers are able to exercise their rights. This is all the more the case given the central role government policy plays in creating the enabling conditions for these industries to emerge and thrive.

Read the report (Link).

By International Institute for Labour Studies - International Labour Organization, November 16, 2011

The European Commission and the International Labour Organization have combined efforts in reaction to the deep crisis that hit the global economy in 2008. The aim of this joint project is to examine policies that will lead not only to a quicker recovery but also to a more sustainable, environmentally friendly and equitable global economy. This is particularly relevant given the uneven and fragile nature of the recovery process across and within countries. These efforts have culminated in the publication of two Synthesis Reports. The first report examines the origins of the crisis and provides an overview of immediate policy responses across both developed and developing economies; the second discusses green policies and labour market issues related to this necessary long-term economic transformation. Both reports are based on a series of technical discussion papers.

This second report aims to promote a clearer understanding of the nature of the green economy and its implications for labour markets, especially the reallocation of jobs from high- to low-polluting sectors. It shows that a double dividend in terms of increased decent work opportunities and a greener economy is possible, provided that complementarities between environmental, economic and social policies are adequately exploited. The report discusses the green policy measures that EU countries are currently undertaking, with a view to identifying any gaps in the policy mix. It also presents model estimates on the likely transmission mechanisms arising from these measures.

Read the report (Link).

By Asbjørn Wahl - Global Labour Column, November 2019

Climate change is a trade union issue. That is what we increasingly, and rightly, have been told by international trade unions leaders over the last ten to fifteen years. While the inter-governmental negotiations on climate change can be dated back to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the first so-called Conference of the Parties (COP) in Berlin, 1995, it was only about 15 years ago that trade union representation at the COP conferences reached around 100 delegates. Since that, representation has been increasing, and we have seen a growing trade union activity on climate change issues.

This activity has focussed particularly on the social dimension of climate change and climate change policies. Thus, the focus has been more on the effects on workers of climate change prevention and mitigation than on policies to really cut fossil fuel emissions. However, trade unions, as well as governmental bodies, cannot be assessed only on the basis of their activities, but first and foremost on what has been achieved in terms of climate change prevention and mitigation – and the social consequences. In this regard, we must admit that the trade union movement has not been able to take a lead in the climate change struggle.

By Jonathan Neale - European Transport Workers Federation (ETF), October 2011

This is a report for the European Transport Workers Federation (ETF) on the implications of climate change for transport workers and their unions. This report tries to do four things:

• Start the debate on climate change.
• Prepare unions to act on climate change, not only react to the agendas of employers and governments.
• Offer realistic transport solutions that meet the needs of transport workers and all humanity.
• Propose ideas for what transport unions can do next.

This report is part of a process that began with a report by the ETF on Trade Union Vision and Sustainable Transport. In 2011, this was followed by a report for the International Transport Federation. Unions write many reports to explain our case to governments and the media. This report is not like that. This one is for union members and leaders. Climate change is new, and union activists need to understand it ourselves. So this report tries to explain
complex scientific, technical and political matters in clear language.

Read the report (PDF).

By staff - Cornell University Global Labor Institute, July 2011

Federal transportation policy is set every five to six years through the Surface Transportation Authorization Act. This policy largely shapes investment in our nation’s transportation system. Currently, only unions whose members are employed in the transport sector play a role in trying to influence federal transportation legislation, but the Reauthorization Act is hugely important to all union members and working people. The current legislation, Safe, Accountable, Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU ) expires September 30, 2011. The reauthorization of federal transportation policy presents an important opportunity for union leaders and members to advocate for key policy reforms that will create good union jobs, defend and expand the role of the public sector in transportation, provide safe and affordable mobility to working families and reduce the transport sector’s contribution to air pollution and climate change.

The state of the U.S. transportation system determines working families’ access to affordable, high-quality mobility and, in turn, their ability to meet essential needs such as getting to work, school, medical services, recreation and more. The maintenance and operation of private vehicles consumes a growing portion of working families’ household budgets and puts owning and operating a vehicle completely out of reach for some. The impact of rising gas prices on working families’ mobility exacerbates the fact that only 50% of Americans have access to public transit. (need citation) Furthermore, in response to budget shortfalls, local governments have increased fares, laid off workers, reduced transit services and offered up public transit systems to privatization.

Read the text (PDF).

By Nora Räthzel, David Uzzell, and Dave Elliott - Soundings, December 2010

Learning from the Lucas Aerospace Workers

The attempt by workers at Lucas Aerospace in the 1970s to develop a plan to convert production in their company from weapons to socially useful goods has recently been invoked in debates on creating low-carbon societies.[1] As Hilary Wainwright and Andy Bowman have argued, a renewed Green New Deal that involved a similar level of painstaking attention to grass-roots participation ‘would be a worthy successor indeed’.[2] We agree with this view, and we would like to make the additional argument that the Lucas example is particularly helpful for international trade union debates on climate change.

The Lucas workers were way ahead of their time in recognising the need for sustainable development - even if such a concept did not exist at that time. But their project also demanded a radical revision of the ways in which society determined its priorities. In today’s terms, their argument was for a ‘Just Transition’. In other words, in adapting production for different needs, it was important to make sure that any new strategies would take workers’ interests into account. And it is this notion that is important in trade union debates today.[3]

Trade unions are not commonly regarded as being on the frontline of the climate change battle. Many people (including not a few trade unionists) see unions as being on the side of climate sceptics, or as being a constituency for whom other concerns are more important. But many national and international unions are currently seeking to develop policies through which their industries can help to mitigate the causes and effects of climate change; and unions do have a long history of struggling for environmental issues - even if this history is not given so much attention today. For example, in the early years of industrialisation trade unionists fought against air and river pollution in their communities. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that safe workplaces - an issue where the history of trade union involvement is more familiar - are also an environmental issue. One reason why the trade union record is often overlooked is that environmental issues have often been raised by environmental movements, which have paid little attention to social and work issues. Equally, trade unionists often reject environmental arguments, for example claiming that it is more important to preserve and create jobs than to ‘save a few trees’ - as was the kind of dismissive remark sometimes made in the course of our interviews. However, things are changing dramatically and fast.

By Jeremy Brecher, Brendan Smith, and Lisa Hoyos - Labor Network for Sustainability, September 2020

California is at the forefront of driving the expansion of the clean energy economy. California’s groundbreaking climate law, the Global Warming Solutions Act — AB 32 — is the most comprehensive climate legislation enacted anywhere in the US. But this law is at risk from political interests, backed by oil company resources, which are trying to overturn it.

AB 32 opponents are using a job-loss argument, creating a false divide between job creation and climate protection. They’ve done this is spite of the fact that green jobs have grown by 5% during a recessionary period where net jobs in our state fell. California already has 500,000 green jobs. We’ve got 12,000 clean energy businesses and we hold 40% of the US patents in solar, wind and advanced battery technology. Sixty percent of all clean energy venture capital is invested here (the runner-up state, Massachusetts, has 10%), with a large spike coming in the years after the passage of AB 32.

Climate change is a global problem. The AB 32 opponents who are working to stop the implementation of California’s climate law argue that our state shouldn’t try to address this problem on its own. However, California is the world’s eighth largest economy, and what we do here carries global significance, both politically and economically. We passed AB 32 in 2006. Four years later, at the national level, it is proving difficult or impossible to pass comprehensive climate policy. If California fails to build on our leadership in this arena, we will be playing into the hands of those, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, who are spending millions of dollars to thwart national action on climate change.

While the foot-dragging on climate protection continues at the national level, everyday’s news brings new evidence of the varied and devastating impacts of climate change happening around the world and within the borders of our own country.

Read the text (PDF).