British Trade Unions must find a way to marry the need for climate action with the need for a worker led approach to the economic and industrial changes implied.
Are we on the road to doing this, and if so how?
In order to encourage this debate at the grass roots, Blackburn and District Trades Union Council is hosting a Panel discussion in Blackburn Central Library – starting 7pm on Wednesday 16th October – with the title “Trade Unions and the climate crisis: green jobs and just transitions”.
Our Panellists are:
- Ben Crawford .Research Officer, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment – co-author of the Institute of Employment Rights (IER) pamphlet, “Working for Climate Justice: Trade unions in the front line against climate change”
- Jason Hunter, UNISON NW Region, and
- Michael Agboh-Davison, UNITE for a Workers Economy and “No ban without a Plan” campaign.
Climate science often depends on inferring the unobservable from measured information. It must accomodate uncertainties due to the complexity of all the functional relationships involved. Some things, though, seem to be firmly established.
Ice core records from Greenland and Antarctica show that greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere have varied over the last 650,000 years of alternating ice ages and warmer periods. Over these cycles the concentration of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has broadly been higher when temperatures have risen – but each rise in CO2 has somewhat lagged behind rises in temperature. The overall variation has been between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 290ppm (in the warmest interglacial periods). These changes in climate appear mainly to have been driven by “Milankovic cycles”, relating to how Earth’s rotation and orbit are not entirely stable. Now, however, something new is happening. The CO2 data show an increase from 315 to 380 ppm since 1958, and rather than following temperature rises the level of CO2 appears to be creating them.
CO2 gets called a “greenhouse gas” because it is one feature of the atmosphere that “traps” infrared radiation and hinders its ability to escape from Earth. The infrared energy that is trapped in the atmosphere is re-emitted, both up to space and back down towards the surface — the latter primarily adding heat to the lower layers. This “greenhouse” effect is largely beneficial to us. it’s a good thing it occurs because it makes our planet much more habitable than it would be otherwise. But the new high levels of CO2 are a matter for concern. They are adding to the “blanket” of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere in a way that is increasing surface temperatures and generating negative consequences.
Earth’s temperature is highly variable, with year-to-year changes often masking the overall rise of approximately 0.6 °C that has occurred since 1860. Nevertheless, the twentieth century’s upward trend is obvious. Especially noticeable is the rapid rise at the end of the twentieth century. Indeed, the period from the 1980s onwards has been the warmest period in the last 2,000 years. 19 of the 20 warmest years on record have occurred since 1980, the 12 warmest all since 1990. 1998 marked the all-time record high year, with 2002 and 2003 in second and third places, respectively. Looking beyond the top ten years, variations of the Earth’s surface temperature shows that the twenty warmest years on record include the entire decade of the ’90s and all but three years from the 1980s as well. The current physical consequences we see are definably signs of warming; glaciers are melting, permafrost is becoming unstable, sea levels are rising, droughts and forest fires have intensified, tropical cyclones have increased in intensity.
The majority scientific conclusion is that that the warming of the late 20th Century is anomalous and unprecedented and that it can only be well-explained when anthropogenic forcing is taken into account. Although water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, its concentration, for the most part, is affected only indirectly by human activity. Virtually all climatologists agree that the cause of the rise in CO2 is human activity – predominantly through the burning of fossil fuels and through deforestation and other land-use changes, along with industrial activities like cement production.
Current models say that that the effects of human activity did not produce significant divergence from natural forcing until the post 1970 period, so their authors think they accomodate the variable patters seen before the 1980s. It is argued that models that include the project effects of human activity do a better job of predicting the observed temperatures than do those with purely natural forcing. Heatherington and Reid, “The Climate Connection”, who have looked at climate changes across long periods, say: “The level of warming that the world experiences as we move farther into the C21st will be a direct consequence of the amount of greenhouse gasses that we dump into the atmosphere today, tomorrow and over the next few decades. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, past emissions commit the world to an estimated warming of at least another 0.6C by the end of the century”.
Predictions as to the consequences of this feature also appear to be proving broadly accurate. The view of the future is that if we cannot stop the rise in temperatures there will be significant worldwide impacts: there will be large-scale displacement of people in Africa as a result of crop failure and thirst; crop production will be threatened in different parts of the world; the Greenland ice-sheet may melt, raising sea levels and possibly even affecting the flow of the Gulf Stream (making Britain much colder, an example of how global trends can result in variable local effects); one-fifth to one third of plant and animal species will face extinction; more areas of the world will face water stress; rising sea levels combined with cyclones will force the evacuation of coastal zones.
Sometimes, things happen that are simply irreversible. Because, however, the increase in atmospheric CO2 seems to be so linked to human activity there is hope that a change in that activity might be able to reverse the consequential changes. The key element has been defined as “decarbonisation”. Andrea Meza, Deputy Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification defines this as: “shorthand for finding alternative ways of living and working that reduce emissions and capture and store carbon in our soil and vegetation. It requires a radical change in our current economic model which is focused on growth at all costs. We must transform how energy is generated and different sources of energy we use, how we build and move around, and how land resources are managed. Whether we burn fossil fuels directly or purchase carbon-intensive products, we must drastically reduce our consumption or switch to low emission technologies and renewable alternatives”.
It is one thing, however, to identify a target and quite another to mobilise a society, or even more so a group of societies, to achieve it.
Trade Unions interact with this issue in a couple of ways.
As representative social organisations we are sensitive to the anxiety of members that we take a position on it. This has been expressed in policy terms, and also through practical initiatives like the (it must be said very scattered) election of “green reps” who are charged with the day-to-day engagement with employers on the environmental impact of businesses.
But we also have to confront the fact that “climate action” calls for big changes in human economic activity, and here we are right at the heart of practical dilemmas. We face two linked questions. One is whether the changes necessary can be achieved without workers “paying the price” in terms of immediate detriments. The other is whether the changes necessary will ever be achieved unless workers are incorporated into the process in a way that offers us immediate protections.
To avoid the worst consequences of climate change, the world economy will have to achieve significant change. Done right, this could mean good jobs, cleaner air and warmer homes for all. But there is also a possibility that the consequences of decarbonizing will fall disproportionately on those in poverty or insecure work, those in carbon-intensive industries, and those in fossil-fuel dependent countries.
In July this year the OECD Trade Union Advisory Committee noted that:
“The 2024 Employment Outlook provides evidence of worsening wages and job opportunities in the move from high emission to green industries and makes a strong case for collective bargaining to achieve a socially just transition to a net-zero economy.
It shows that workers from high emission industries are relatively well-paid, tend to have stable jobs and are much more likely to be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. If they lose their job, they find it more difficult to find a new and stable job, and are often forced to accept wage cuts and move occupation or region.
The OECD found that workers displaced from high-emission industries lose up to 40% of average annual earnings compared to 30% for workers displaced from low-emission industries (over the six years following dismissal).
On the other side of the equation, the OECD finds that low and medium skilled jobs in demand because of the green transition offer lower pay and poorer working conditions, with workers less likely to be covered by collective bargaining”.
According to Xinxin Wang and Kevin Lo, “Just transition: A conceptual review“, “The concept of a just transition has a long history and has been applied by activists, labour unions, and associated groups dating back to the early 1970s”. In the climate change context it addresses the realisation that the impacts of climate change on people are uneven and so too are the impacts of attempts to mitigate carbon emissions, such as closing down fossil fuel plants and expanding renewable energy. Action to enable a ‘just transition” tries to combat this inequality to bring about fairer outcomes as the world attempts to move to net zero carbon emissions, maximising “the benefits of climate action” and minimising “the negative impacts for workers and their communities”. Its importance is recognised at the international level through its inclusion in the 2015 Paris Agreement.
An added complication is that countries that fail to invest in new technologies risk comparative decline. In September 2023 the TUC published a Report, “Pulling all the Levers”, which claimed that “between 660,000 and 834,000 jobs could be offshored from Britain if the UK fails to deliver comparable clean industrial policies to our peers. The analysis identifies jobs that, unless government acts now, could be moved offshore to countries that offer superior green infrastructure and greater support for decarbonising industry!”.
Unfortunately, the idea of a “just transition” directs our attention to aspects of economic intervention where British governments have historically been weak and politically absent.
Strategic, upfront, state investment will be essential. Dimitri Zenghelis and Esin Serin commented earlier this year (in the strangely titled LSE Blog piece “Forget the environment, the UK economy needs this to be a climate election”): “The Climate Change Committee estimates that the UK needs to grow its annual low-carbon investment five-fold from around £10 billion in 2020 to £50 billion by 2030 (and maintain it around that level) if it is to deliver on net zero emissions by 2050. Ensuring the UK can maximise economic and social opportunities along the way requires a coherent investment programme designed to make up for decades of underinvestment in key assets like public buildings and skills, tackle biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, and develop domestic capabilities in markets of the future. Achieving these objectives will require increasing annual investment by at least 3 per cent of GDP (or £77 billion at current prices)”.
Industrial strategy needs to incorporate clear sectoral plans. Joshua Emden, Joseph Evans and Luke Murphy commented in the 2023 IPPR publication “Fairer winds Workers’ rights in the age of transition”: “The recent steel deal between the UK government and Tata Steel illustrates this point. The use of coal in steelmaking must come to an end but the £500 million agreement looks like a bad deal for workers, the wider community in Port Talbot, and for Britain. The steel sector in the UK was desperate for a Sector Deal all the way back in 2017. The nuclear industry got one and secured relatively strong commitments to hire locally and protect jobs. The steel sector didn’t get one and now it’s fighting for its life and workers are suffering. The government also failed to give unions and workers a seat at the table throughout the deal process and their interests have been ignored or abandoned. The greening of steel is a race the UK is losing but it didn’t need to be this way. Germany has invested over $53 billion in decarbonising heavy industry and has committed to work with unions and protect jobs”.
It is hard to imagine progress independent of a substantial skills and education programme. The consultancy firm PwC has argued that “a fresh pipeline of approximately 200,000 people will need training for green energy jobs to keep the energy transition on track” (“Energy transition will be constrained by green skills gap of c.200,000 workers – PwC Green Jobs Barometer” August 2022). ““Government and industry” they said, “must work together to develop these new skills and capabilities at scale”.
Meanwhile, Investing in sustainable infrastructure such as insulation retrofits, building wind turbines, rolling out EV charging infrastructure – or even just planting trees and restoring wetlands- is labour intensive, and not susceptible to offshoring or imports. Consequently, it has strong potential to boost bridging activity in the short run whilst contributing to an ongoing decarbonisation strategy.
We do hope that colleagues living locally will be interested in attending our meeting on 16th October to discuss these issues.