Paris Climate Agreement

By staff - La Via Campesina, November 20, 2023

HALT THE GENOCIDE! CEASEFIRE NOW!

(Bagnolet, November 20, 2023) In response to the unprecedented and genocidal war being waged on the people of Palestine, the international peasant movement that is La Via Campesina joins the growing call to boycott COP28. In solidarity with the peasants, fisherfolk and working families of Occupied Palestine, we stand united in our global demand that all people and governments act now to end Israel’s genocidal war on Palestinians, both in Gaza and the West Bank. A ceasefire is urgent – now!

While the Israeli government continues its war crimes in Gaza – bombing homes, hospitals, mosques and churches, massacring innocent civilians (including over 4,000 children) and leaving tens of thousands maimed, injured and traumatized – armed settlers backed by Occupation forces are waging their own war across the West Bank. As a Movement that struggles for the full realization of all rights for all peoples, we of La Vía Campesina cannot in good conscience participate in the UNFCCC climate negotiations while a textbook case of genocide is being waged on members of our community, their rights and sovereignty completely denied. There is no climate justice without human rights!

As we bear witness to this violence, we are especially concerned about the greenwashing of colonization and apartheid at this year’s COP28 in Dubai. Israel’s participation obscures the ongoing genocide and redirects global attention from the crimes it commits. The hypocrisy and abuse of many imperialist and polluting governments at COP28 is further revealed by the host government for the climate talks, the UAE, a major oil producer and human rights violator, and the COP Presidency – a billionaire oil executive! The corruption of the UNFCCC must end!

Our decision to boycott COP28 is also our ratification of a deep commitment to and solidarity with a global climate justice movement rooted in popular struggles for human rights and restored relations with Mother Earth. Towards this year’s COP, we dedicate our collective voice to demand an inmediate cease fire now! Palestinian rights are human rights!

By Paolo Tomassetti - European Trade Union Institute, May 2, 2023

On 10 March 2023, the European Council and the Parliament reached a provisional agreement to reform the EU Energy Efficiency Directive, which lays down rules and obligations for achieving the EU’s 2030 energy efficiency targets. The agreement aims to reduce final energy consumption at EU level by 11.7% by 2030, exceeding the Commission’s original ‘Fit for 55’ proposal. Rapporteur Niels Fuglsang (S&D, DK) presented the agreement as a great victory that is 'not only good for our climate, but bad for Putin'. Kadri Simson, Commissioner for Energy, added: 'Energy efficiency is key for achieving the full decarbonisation of the EU’s economy and independence from Russian fossil fuels'.

While this marks the first time EU policymakers have made an energy consumption target binding, trade unions, NGOs and civil society organisations are critical. ResCoop, for example, notes that the overall EU 11.7% target is non-binding at EU level: binding energy saving targets (1.49%/year) refer to the individual Member States only. Meanwhile, the Climate Action Network (Europe) regrets that, despite its binding nature, the target 'does not even align with the REPowerEU Plan, failing to recognise the skyrocketing energy prices as a result of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. It is far below the 20% energy efficiency target that is needed for the EU to fulfil its obligations under the Paris Agreement'.

However, there is consensus that some progress has been made compared to the existing Directive. Firstly, energy efficiency requirements must now be integrated into public procurement. This normative technique echoes the horizontal policies promoted in EU public procurement and concession laws, under which the procurement or concessions of products, services, buildings and public spaces by public administrations are used as a lever to achieve social and environmental sustainability goals.

Secondly, the revised directive will lay down an obligation for large energy consumers to adopt an 'energy management system'. This includes SMEs that exceed 85 terajoules of annual energy consumption (a terajoule/TJ is equal to one trillion joules; or about 0.278 gigawatt hours/GWh, which is often used in energy tables). Otherwise, they will be subject to an energy audit (if their annual consumption exceeds 10TJ). Workers could be positively affected by this provision. For example, MBO’s plan of managerial staff could include indicators linked to energy efficiency targets under the energy management system. Workers’ representatives could negotiate collective agreements that redistribute the resources flowing from energy and cost savings to go towards wage raises. This would be consistent with the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, according to which 'new awareness of the need for more restrained consumption will free up resources, which can then be used for other things. Trade union agreements on measurable targets and distribution of profits between businesses and workers could be a useful way of raising widespread awareness of the importance of saving energy'.

Thirdly, the agreement includes the first ever EU definition of energy poverty – a situation in which households are unable to access essential energy services and products. People affected by energy poverty – vulnerable customers, low-income households, and, where applicable, people living in social housing – should be given primacy when Member States implement energy efficiency improvement measures. The revised rules put a stronger emphasis on alleviating energy poverty and empowering consumers, acknowledging support for energy communities as one way to meet the targets. Since the condition of energy poverty affects many vulnerable people from the working class, this is certainly another area for collective action by trade unions. Unsurprisingly, unions from different EU countries are already engaged in cooperation with NGOs and environmental groups to promote energy communities as a way to democratise the energy system while connecting energy poverty and labour disempowerment (see initiative by CGIL and Fiom-CGIL Milan as examples).

The provisional agreement now requires formal adoption by the European Parliament and Council. Further comments will follow soon after the text is published in the Official Journal of the Union and enters into force.

By Rebecca Solnit - Bioneers, April 25, 2023

By Jarlath Molloy and Finlay Asher - Green Air News, January 27, 2023

This year begins with a reflective assessment of the aviation sector’s climate credentials and the challenges it faces, write Jarlath Molloy and Finlay Asher, who point out this may not be an easy read for some, as there are many barriers to overcome. The strategy so far has been to stick our heads in the sand and ignore these, they say. Yet there are pathways to a safe landing and the costs of doing something are less than the costs of doing nothing. In this article the authors look to shine a spotlight on aviation’s full climate impact and how the sector alone could put us over the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. They highlight the common failings of the sector’s hypothetical decarbonisation pathways and propose an alternative to the sectors’ net zero aspirational goals – which will feel radical to industry leaders but are consistent with how other sectors are setting science-based targets.

As a group of scientists, engineers, air traffic controllers, pilots and airline workers, climate change keeps Safe Landing members up at night. We worry about the future and our legacy to our children. Meaningful action and change is frustratingly slow, despite all the warnings about planetary boundaries^[i], tipping points^[ii] and the costs of inaction in response to climate and biodiversity crises. We should have the confidence to critically ask ourselves whether the sector’s environmental practitioners can have any hope in terms of impact, relevance or effectiveness^[iii].

Aviation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reached one billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions pre-Covid^[iv] and are expected to pass this again in the near future^[v]. This threshold is also known as a ‘carbon bomb’. But of course the bomb is even bigger because most of the sector has historically refused to recognise its non-CO₂ emissions impact. While it is true this is more complex to measure^[vi], the data and tools exist to assess the full climate impact the aviation sector is responsible for^[vii] and to confidently reduce non-CO₂ emissions.

How did we get here? This problem has been 30 years in the making. Heads of states from around the world agreed the formation of the UNFCCC in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit and to stabilise GHG emissions in the atmosphere to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. Action on aviation GHG emissions was deferred by giving the problem to ICAO. In 2015 the Paris Agreement refined our collective ambition to limit climate change to 1.5°C this century, with GHG emissions to peak “as soon as possible” and reach net zero by 2050.

It took exactly 30 years from the Earth Summit at Rio for governments (and industry) to set GHG emission targets for the aviation sector, in 2022, but which are still only aspirational^[viii] and fall short of what is required to achieve the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature goal^[ix]. This was in spite of ICAO commissioning a special report from the UNFCCC on aviation’s climate change impact in 1997^[x] and a slew of scientific studies and research since then on the same topic. Despite its name, ICAO’s flagship initiative known as CORSIA (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation)^[xi] won’t reduce^[xii] aviation GHG emissions. Instead, it relies on offsets from other sectors to keep carbon emissions from international flights below a 2019 baseline.

By: Charles Harper, Sam Krasnow, Leah Stokes, Lissa Lynch, Sam Ricketts, Amanda Levin, Daniela Schulman, Jeff Slyfield, and Christy Walsh - Evergreen Collaborative and NRDC, January 2023

President Joe Biden entered office with a commitment to the American people: that the United States would achieve 100 percent clean, carbon-free electricity by 2035. Clean electricity is essential to America’s response to the climate crisis. And reaching 80 percent clean power by 2030 is key to achieving the U.S. economy-wide goal of at least halving carbon pollution this decade.

Decarbonizing the power sector is a major task requiring both federal legislative and executive action. Accordingly, the Biden Administration has promised a whole-of-government response that includes robust performance standards, significant investment, and a commitment to justice. The U.S. took an important step on clean energy investment in 2022, when Congress and President Biden enacted the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This historic climate legislation contains over $370 billion in investments towards building America’s clean energy economy.

However, according to new modeling in this report, the U.S. must take further action to meet its clean energy goals this decade. The IRA’s investments are projected to increase carbon-free electricity in the U.S. from approximately 40 percent in 2022 to 66 percent clean power by 2030. This falls short of the 80 percent target that’s consistent with the path to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035. The bill is also estimated to help cut economy-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030—an important step, but short of America’s 50–52 percent commitment under the Paris Agreement.

To close the gaps between our climate and clean power targets and our current trajectory, and to further advance President Biden’s critical climate and environmental justice commitments, the Biden Administration must take decisive executive action to cut pollution and advance clean electricity in the power sector over the next two years. More states must also continue to step up and lead on 100 percent clean energy.

Read the entire statement (PDF).

By staff - International Trade Union Confederation, November 21, 2022

Governments from the global south finally achieved a long fought for agreement to establish a fund to compensate “loss and damage” from climate change related events in developing countries.. The challenge is now to provide the necessary finance for the fund and to make it operational by COP28.

The trade union movement welcomes the establishment of a work program on just transition. The “Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan” asserts that Just Transition is founded on Social Dialogue.

Sharan Burrow, outgoing ITUC General Secretary, said: “Workers must have a place at the table for a transition that stabilises the planet, economies and our societies. Transition plans need to include both climate and employment plans. That requires unions to be involved and own the process, otherwise we risk stoking the fear of those who feel left behind and left out of decision making.”

Inclusion of social protection a major step forward

Eric Manzi, ITUC-Africa Deputy General Secretary, said: “To build resilience for workers, families and communities, comprehensive and universal social protection systems are needed. We need to see the funds to ensure those systems can deliver unemployment benefits and fundamental health services.

“In Africa, funds are desperately needed for transition skills training and ensuring informal jobs become formalised decent jobs with social protection. This is the way to deliver for workers in poor and rich countries alike.”

Unions regret the absence of commitments by countries to respect labour rights and human rights. The right to free trade unions, collective bargaining and occupational health and safety are essential to ensure a Just Transition.

The reluctance of countries to specifically guarantee the respect of human rights is a major concern for the labour movement. Ambitious climate policies can only be successful if there is trust that rights are respected for everyone.

On climate mitigation the result is very disappointing. Countries are backtracking on their commitment at COP26 in Scotland to phase down coal. The door is opened for “low-emission” energy instead of focussing fully on renewable energy.

Sharan Burrow said: “On market mechanisms we see the continuing undermining of the objectives of the Paris Agreement by proposals that allow double counting and unsustainable removal technologies. Stepping up mitigation ambition must be a major priority for COP28. The challenge will be how the incoming UAE COP28 Presidency will deal with that.”

By staff - European Trade Union Institute, September 15, 2022

The recent Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is properly recognised as the largest climate policy in US history. In this short essay I will first summarise and comment on its provisions, then outline the reactions to it, with a focus on labour unions, and will close by providing my own thoughts.

The IRA allocates around $370 billion over a period of ten years. About 75% of that is in the form of incentives (rather than direct investments or regulatory mandates) to advance the transition to ‘clean energy’ that includes renewables but also nuclear power, biofuels, hydrogen, and carbon capture and sequestration. These incentives focus primarily on advancing the production of clean energy but also on stimulating its consumption. Smaller energy investments focus on tackling pollution in poorer communities and on conservation and rural development.

The IRA also authorises as much as $350 billion of loans to be disbursed by the Department of Energy. While such loans have been around since the Bush Administration, the amounts and the likelihood that they will be used during the Biden Administration are much higher. Finally, its main regulatory provision is the designation of carbon, methane and other heat-trapping emissions from power plants, automobiles, and oil and gas wells as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, one of the bedrocks of US environmental legislation, which the Environmental Protection Agency implements. Overall, it is estimated that by 2030 the IRA will help reduce emissions by around 40% of 2005 levels, compared to the about 25% reduction projected without it. 

However, the policy mandates that renewable energy siting permits cannot be approved during any year unless accompanied by the opening up of 2 million acres of land or 60 million acres of ocean to oil and gas leasing bids, respectively, during the prior year (for more details see 50265 of Act). In either case, the amount of actual leasing and drilling is subject to market dynamics rather than regulatory limits, while the Act also streamlines the permitting process for pipelines. The growing transition to electric vehicles will lessen the market for oil but the strategic repositioning of natural gas in energy production (as well as plastics) suggests that it (along with nuclear power) will be a long-term source of energy, including in the production of hydrogen. Nevertheless, overall, it is the prevailing view that the IRA will decisively transition the US into renewable energy as part of a broader energy mix.

By staff - Labor Network for Sustainability, September 2022

Passage of the Inflation Reduction Act reveals the power that can arise when the movements for worker protection, climate protection, and justice protection join forces.

The fossil fuel industry, the Republican Party, conservative fossil-fuel Democrats, and right-wing ideologues combined to block the climate, labor, and social justice programs of the Green New Deal and Build Back Better. They almost succeeded. But at the last minute, the combined power of climate protectors, worker advocates, and justice fighters was enough to force passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate legislation in U.S. history.[1]

That power was enough to include important positive elements in the Inflation Reduction Act. It will provide the largest climate protection investment ever made. It will create an estimated 1 to 1.5 million jobs annually for a ten-year period.[2] It includes modest but significant funding to address pollution in frontline communities.[3]

But the power of the fossil fuel industry and its allies was still enough to gut important parts of a program for climate, jobs, and justice – and to add provisions that promote injustice and climate change. The legislation includes only one-quarter of the investment necessary to meet the Paris climate goals and prevent the worst consequences of global warming. It allows much of its funding to be squandered on unproven technologies that claim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but whose primary effect may simply be to permit the continued burning of fossil fuels – and enrich their promoters. It allows increased extraction of fossil fuels, especially on federal lands. It allows massive drilling and pipeline construction that will turn areas like the Gulf Coast and Appalachia into de facto “sacrifice zones” where expanded fossil fuel infrastructure will devastate the environment – and the people. It does not guarantee that the jobs it creates will be good jobs. It makes few “just transition” provisions for workers and communities whose livelihoods may be threatened by the changes it will fund.

By Sharon Kelly - DeSmog, June 16, 2022

CalPERS says it needs to hold onto billions in fossil fuel shares in order to push polluters in the right direction – but a new report details a pattern of voting against climate proposals.

Does engaging with oil and gas giants by remaining invested in them – keeping a “seat at the table” – help in the fight against climate change? 

A new report suggests not very much – at least judging by the record of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).

The report by environmental group Fossil Free California takes the public pension fund to task for its results to date, highlighting its history of pushing “the importance of corporate engagement on climate change” in public statements, while simultaneously voting against climate measures in shareholder meetings.

The report details dozens of votes against climate measures by CalPERS this year — including votes against greenhouse gas reduction targets at Royal Dutch Shell, against reporting and reducing greenhouse gas emissions at BP, and against pushing big banks to get in line with international “net zero by 2050” strategies.

In fact, CalPERS has voted against every climate resolution at major American and Canadian banks so far this year, the report claims.

The report also casts doubt on one of the biggest accomplishments of CalPERS’ engagement strategy – the election of several new members to ExxonMobil’s board of directors last year, nominated by the activist investment firm Engine No. 1. The report faults Engine No. 1’s directors for voting against two recent proposals to set greenhouse gas targets that would account for the pollution caused by the fossil fuels ExxonMobil sells, and to produce a report on low-carbon business plans.

“Despite their best efforts, CalPERS and [California’s other major pension fund] CalSTRS have failed to persuade fossil fuel companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, increase their renewable energy production, or transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy,” the report concludes. “By opposing climate proposals at the very companies they claim to influence, the funds’ shareholder activism is not only ineffective – it’s undermining climate action.” 

California lawmakers are currently considering a bill that would spur these pension funds, which invest retirement funds for state employees – including many, like the state’s firefighters, who are today on the front lines of the climate crisis – to drop their investments in fossil fuel producers.

The fund has an estimated $7.4 billion worth of fossil fuel investments that the bill would require them to shed. In April, its board voted to oppose that law, arguing that it would lose its “seat at the table,” only to be replaced by investors that “may not have the same interest in long-term sustainability as CalPERS”..

CalPERS declined comment on Fossil Free California’s new report.

By Johan Gärdebo - Democracy in Action, June 9, 2022

As Sweden's trade unions join the green economy, will they be able to manage the tensions between climate policies and party politics?

Ulf Karlström walks into the staff canteen having finished his morning shift. At one of the tables sit the representatives from Karlström’s union, IF Metall (the biggest union for factory and metal workers in Sweden). At another are the white collar workers and blast furnace managers. “Where are you going to sit?” someone asks, loud enough for everyone to hear. Karlström hesitates, only to be beckoned over by one of the managers, “Ulf, sit with us”.

Despite bearing all the hallmarks of a high school popularity contest, this scene took place at the Luleå plant of SSAB – a Swedish multinational and Northern Europe’s largest steel manufacturer – and is indicative of the conflicted loyalties seen in trade unions throughout Swedish industry today.

In 2021, Karlström was elected as trade union chairperson for the Pig Iron Division at SSAB Luleå. At the time, Karlström was serving as a local politician for the Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigration, right-wing populist party opposed to the climate politics of the centre-left Social Democrats. It was the latter who founded the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, or LO (Landsorganisationen), and still recruits members from LO’s ranks for political positions.

SSAB Luleå’s union members, who were fully aware of Karlström’s affiliation with the Sweden Democrats, did not consider this an obstacle to him representing their interests as workers. The leadership of IF Metall, which is part of LO, took a rather different view, leading to Karlström’s expulsion from the union. The issue was one of political loyalty, an issue of particular concern to the union’s ‘boomers’ (those born between 1946 and 1964).

A party for workers or a workers’ party?

Trade union members currently find themselves at the centre of a tug-of-war between the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats. This struggle between what has traditionally been viewed as the ‘party for workers’ and the new ‘workers’ party’ became national news in spring 2021 when Mats Fredlund, representative of the Transport Workers’ Union, was expelled for serving as an elected politician for the Sweden Democrats. Similar cases were also reported in the Union of Commercial Employees and the Teacher’s Union. The union leadership stated that the expulsions were driven by the fact that the Sweden Democrats’ värdegrund – a Swedish term alluding to a value system or core principles – was incompatible with that of LO’s Social Democrat trade unions.

This argument conveniently sidesteps the reality that over 60% of LO members now support political parties other than the Social Democrats. The Sweden Democrats have particularly large support among IF Metall members, suggesting affinity, rather than antagonism, between the core principles of Sweden Democrat and Social Democrat workers. It is this overlap that terrifies the LO leadership.

While the Sweden Democrats have been siphoning off Social Democrat voters since the early 2000s, it was not until summer 2020, when Susanna Gideonsson took over as LO’s chairperson, that explicit strategies were launched to bring conservative union members back into the union fold. Driving such initiatives is the overarching question: how can LO become better at listening to, and promoting, Swedish workers and the realities they face?