To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Over
the past couple of years, the American labor movement has become an
enthusiastic supporter of expanding "green jobs" that fight global
warming. But policies to reduce carbon emissions scientists say are
safe have been a harder pill to swallow. Now, in a significant
breakthrough, three significant unions have come out for the
science-based emissions targets called for by the IPCC.
Over
the past couple of years, the American labor movement has become an
enthusiastic supporter of expanding "green jobs" that fight global
warming. But policies to reduce carbon emissions scientists say are
safe have been a harder pill to swallow. Now, in a significant
breakthrough, three significant unions have come out for the
science-based emissions targets called for by the IPCC.
As 250
international union delegates arrived in Copenhagen for the global
climate summit, a statement by the Transport Workers Union (TWU) and a
joint statement by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and
the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) called for a
25 to 40 percent reduction on 1990 levels for developed countries by
2020.
Sean Sweeney, director of the the Cornell University
Global Labor Institute, who worked with the US labor delegation to be
fully engaged in the UN process at the Copenhagen conference, said:
"The
statements are a clear sign that U.S. unions want to bring scientific
necessity into alignment with job creation and green economic
development. Many other unions are also moving in this direction.
Engaging with unions overseas has also helped U.S. unions to see
support for climate protection is also an act of international
solidarity."
Unions and targets
Both union
statements gave support to the more limited climate protection measures
proposed by President Barack Obama on the eve of the Copenhagen
summit. They also endorsed the climate legislation introduced by
Senators Kerry and Boxer. But they argued that reductions to address
the climate emergency must go substantially further. They noted that
President Obama's commitment of 17 percent reduction on 2005 levels is
only 4 percent below 1990 levels, which have been widely used as a
benchmark in international scientific discussions.
The
SEIU-LIUNA statement points out this means extreme, perhaps impossible
reductions will be necessary later to meet the targets science says are
necessary.
"To reach an 80% reduction by 2050, the
scientific consensus, with an only 4% reduction by 2020 means that
there must be a 76% reduction over the last three decades or roughly
25% per decade. We find it difficult to justify backloading this
obligation in a way that shifts the burden of reducing carbon emissions
from ourselves to our children and grandchildren. Accordingly, we
would support more aggressive carbon emission reduction policies."
It
said that "an aggressive and science-based approach to emissions
reductions" is "absolutely necessary" for "achieving a sustainable
environment."
Until now few if any US unions and neither of
the major labor federations, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, have
supported specific emission reduction targets or even gone on record
for the principle of making the reductions called for by scientific
consensus. This is largely because only a few unions with a direct
stake in the issue, notably in the energy and manufacturing sectors,
have opposed such measures.
Their stand brings these three
unions in line with the position of the International Trade Union
Confederation (ITUC), an organization that represents national union
federations with membership of 175 million workers in 155 countries.
It organized the international trade union delegation to the Copenhagen
conference and strongly supported the IPCC targets.
An article
published by the BNA reported that the AFL-CIO had issued its own
position paper at the Poznan climate talks supporting ITUC concerns for
"decent work, green jobs, industrial regeneration, border adjustment
mechanisms and worker adjustment mechanisms" but failing to indicate
support for the targets and timetables at the core of the ITUC
position. The BNA reported that, "U.S. labor unions balked at backing
ITUC's position, given fears that deep cuts would 'devastate' heavy
manufacturing in the United States as well as the coal and steel
industries."
Labor's traditional approach to climate policy
was largely shaped by industries in the manufacturing and energy
sectors. That is likely to change, however, as a result of the
changing sectoral center of gravity with organized labor. According to
a recent study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, barely
one union member in ten works in manufacturing. An even smaller
proportion work in fossil fuel production.
Today the
overwhelming majority of union members are in services and the public
sector. But they have barely begun to weight in significantly on
climate policy. If the new statements by the transport, service, and
laborers unions are any indication, they are likely to favor stronger
climate protection with more stringent emission reductions. This
reflects not only the interest of their members in a livable world for
their children, but the fact that the great majority of potential green
jobs are in the building, transporation, public, and service sectors.
Why targets matter for green jobs
Both
statements emphasized that emissions reduction targets were important
to the green jobs agenda. According to the SEIU/LIUNA statement, "A
clear science-based target will drive a massive increase in the
generation of green jobs, pubic mass transit, renewable energy, green
manufacturing, energy-efficient construction and building retrofits, as
well as in other sectors."
The statement went on to describe
strong targets as critical to provide incentives for creating green
jobs. "The more ambitious the target, the stronger the political
signal to private investors and innovators who wish to serve the green
economy."
It also argued that absence of strong targets could have the opposite effect.
"A
weak target slows green job growth, serves as a drag on the global
effort, and will not serve climate stability over the long term. Jobs
that conserve energy, fight sprawl and congestion, and retool and
re-equip our industries according to green and sustainable principles
are the wave of the future for the US and with world."
The TWU
statement adds that a science-based approach to emissions reductions
will be good for our economy and for working families. "With the US
suffering over 10 percent unemployment and falling living standards, we
need to fulfill the promise of green jobs sooner, not later."
The
statements called for a "just transition" to the green economy to
provide full protections for workers negatively impacted by climate
policies. The TWU statement notes that the transition to a low carbon
economy must be pursued in a way that is "fair to workers and
supportive of impacted communities." According to the SEIU/LIUNA
statement, "Workers in energy intensive industries should not be asked
to shoulder a disproportionate burden."
Why union positions matter
Union
positions can make a big difference on climate legislation. Coal and
manufacturing unions have played a significant role in provisions in
current legislation that are favorable to their industries. CQ says
AFL-CIO support is essential to passing any climate change bill; Jason
Grumet, director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, says, "If
you don't have organized labor, you can't get something through."
Strong union support for science-based target could play a significant
role in strengthening current legislation.
The US will also
face an enormous number of climate related policy decisions in the near
and more distant future, ranging from what provisions should be in
international treaties to national policy on fuel efficiency standards
to sidewalks and bicycle lanes for local streets. Organized labor can
be a significant player in all of them. It can also play a big role in
how those policies are actually implemented in industries and
workplaces. And it can help educate its sixteen-and-a-half million
members about what climate change means for them and their children and
what has to be done about it.
The SEIU/LIUNA statement concludes,
"Our
nation stands at the threshold of a dramatic transformation toward a
clean, green and sustainable economy. Ambitious reduction targets for
2020 and beyond can help drive this transformation."
The new
union statements supporting science-based targets could be the start of
a significant trend that could put organized labor in the forefront not
only of the green jobs movement but also of the broader movement to
protect the climate. Support for targets and strong policies to
implement them will position labor as a progressive social force and a
leading player in the emerging movement for sustainability. According
to Joe Uehlein, former director of the AFL-CIO Center for Strategic
Campaigns and a founder of the Labor Network for Sustainability:
"This
is an opportunity for all of labor to step up to the plate for what
science says is necessary to protect the planet. That's what we have to
do if we want our society to be sustainable. That isn't only good for
the planet - it's good for labor."
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Over
the past couple of years, the American labor movement has become an
enthusiastic supporter of expanding "green jobs" that fight global
warming. But policies to reduce carbon emissions scientists say are
safe have been a harder pill to swallow. Now, in a significant
breakthrough, three significant unions have come out for the
science-based emissions targets called for by the IPCC.
As 250
international union delegates arrived in Copenhagen for the global
climate summit, a statement by the Transport Workers Union (TWU) and a
joint statement by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and
the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) called for a
25 to 40 percent reduction on 1990 levels for developed countries by
2020.
Sean Sweeney, director of the the Cornell University
Global Labor Institute, who worked with the US labor delegation to be
fully engaged in the UN process at the Copenhagen conference, said:
"The
statements are a clear sign that U.S. unions want to bring scientific
necessity into alignment with job creation and green economic
development. Many other unions are also moving in this direction.
Engaging with unions overseas has also helped U.S. unions to see
support for climate protection is also an act of international
solidarity."
Unions and targets
Both union
statements gave support to the more limited climate protection measures
proposed by President Barack Obama on the eve of the Copenhagen
summit. They also endorsed the climate legislation introduced by
Senators Kerry and Boxer. But they argued that reductions to address
the climate emergency must go substantially further. They noted that
President Obama's commitment of 17 percent reduction on 2005 levels is
only 4 percent below 1990 levels, which have been widely used as a
benchmark in international scientific discussions.
The
SEIU-LIUNA statement points out this means extreme, perhaps impossible
reductions will be necessary later to meet the targets science says are
necessary.
"To reach an 80% reduction by 2050, the
scientific consensus, with an only 4% reduction by 2020 means that
there must be a 76% reduction over the last three decades or roughly
25% per decade. We find it difficult to justify backloading this
obligation in a way that shifts the burden of reducing carbon emissions
from ourselves to our children and grandchildren. Accordingly, we
would support more aggressive carbon emission reduction policies."
It
said that "an aggressive and science-based approach to emissions
reductions" is "absolutely necessary" for "achieving a sustainable
environment."
Until now few if any US unions and neither of
the major labor federations, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, have
supported specific emission reduction targets or even gone on record
for the principle of making the reductions called for by scientific
consensus. This is largely because only a few unions with a direct
stake in the issue, notably in the energy and manufacturing sectors,
have opposed such measures.
Their stand brings these three
unions in line with the position of the International Trade Union
Confederation (ITUC), an organization that represents national union
federations with membership of 175 million workers in 155 countries.
It organized the international trade union delegation to the Copenhagen
conference and strongly supported the IPCC targets.
An article
published by the BNA reported that the AFL-CIO had issued its own
position paper at the Poznan climate talks supporting ITUC concerns for
"decent work, green jobs, industrial regeneration, border adjustment
mechanisms and worker adjustment mechanisms" but failing to indicate
support for the targets and timetables at the core of the ITUC
position. The BNA reported that, "U.S. labor unions balked at backing
ITUC's position, given fears that deep cuts would 'devastate' heavy
manufacturing in the United States as well as the coal and steel
industries."
Labor's traditional approach to climate policy
was largely shaped by industries in the manufacturing and energy
sectors. That is likely to change, however, as a result of the
changing sectoral center of gravity with organized labor. According to
a recent study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, barely
one union member in ten works in manufacturing. An even smaller
proportion work in fossil fuel production.
Today the
overwhelming majority of union members are in services and the public
sector. But they have barely begun to weight in significantly on
climate policy. If the new statements by the transport, service, and
laborers unions are any indication, they are likely to favor stronger
climate protection with more stringent emission reductions. This
reflects not only the interest of their members in a livable world for
their children, but the fact that the great majority of potential green
jobs are in the building, transporation, public, and service sectors.
Why targets matter for green jobs
Both
statements emphasized that emissions reduction targets were important
to the green jobs agenda. According to the SEIU/LIUNA statement, "A
clear science-based target will drive a massive increase in the
generation of green jobs, pubic mass transit, renewable energy, green
manufacturing, energy-efficient construction and building retrofits, as
well as in other sectors."
The statement went on to describe
strong targets as critical to provide incentives for creating green
jobs. "The more ambitious the target, the stronger the political
signal to private investors and innovators who wish to serve the green
economy."
It also argued that absence of strong targets could have the opposite effect.
"A
weak target slows green job growth, serves as a drag on the global
effort, and will not serve climate stability over the long term. Jobs
that conserve energy, fight sprawl and congestion, and retool and
re-equip our industries according to green and sustainable principles
are the wave of the future for the US and with world."
The TWU
statement adds that a science-based approach to emissions reductions
will be good for our economy and for working families. "With the US
suffering over 10 percent unemployment and falling living standards, we
need to fulfill the promise of green jobs sooner, not later."
The
statements called for a "just transition" to the green economy to
provide full protections for workers negatively impacted by climate
policies. The TWU statement notes that the transition to a low carbon
economy must be pursued in a way that is "fair to workers and
supportive of impacted communities." According to the SEIU/LIUNA
statement, "Workers in energy intensive industries should not be asked
to shoulder a disproportionate burden."
Why union positions matter
Union
positions can make a big difference on climate legislation. Coal and
manufacturing unions have played a significant role in provisions in
current legislation that are favorable to their industries. CQ says
AFL-CIO support is essential to passing any climate change bill; Jason
Grumet, director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, says, "If
you don't have organized labor, you can't get something through."
Strong union support for science-based target could play a significant
role in strengthening current legislation.
The US will also
face an enormous number of climate related policy decisions in the near
and more distant future, ranging from what provisions should be in
international treaties to national policy on fuel efficiency standards
to sidewalks and bicycle lanes for local streets. Organized labor can
be a significant player in all of them. It can also play a big role in
how those policies are actually implemented in industries and
workplaces. And it can help educate its sixteen-and-a-half million
members about what climate change means for them and their children and
what has to be done about it.
The SEIU/LIUNA statement concludes,
"Our
nation stands at the threshold of a dramatic transformation toward a
clean, green and sustainable economy. Ambitious reduction targets for
2020 and beyond can help drive this transformation."
The new
union statements supporting science-based targets could be the start of
a significant trend that could put organized labor in the forefront not
only of the green jobs movement but also of the broader movement to
protect the climate. Support for targets and strong policies to
implement them will position labor as a progressive social force and a
leading player in the emerging movement for sustainability. According
to Joe Uehlein, former director of the AFL-CIO Center for Strategic
Campaigns and a founder of the Labor Network for Sustainability:
"This
is an opportunity for all of labor to step up to the plate for what
science says is necessary to protect the planet. That's what we have to
do if we want our society to be sustainable. That isn't only good for
the planet - it's good for labor."
Over
the past couple of years, the American labor movement has become an
enthusiastic supporter of expanding "green jobs" that fight global
warming. But policies to reduce carbon emissions scientists say are
safe have been a harder pill to swallow. Now, in a significant
breakthrough, three significant unions have come out for the
science-based emissions targets called for by the IPCC.
As 250
international union delegates arrived in Copenhagen for the global
climate summit, a statement by the Transport Workers Union (TWU) and a
joint statement by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and
the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) called for a
25 to 40 percent reduction on 1990 levels for developed countries by
2020.
Sean Sweeney, director of the the Cornell University
Global Labor Institute, who worked with the US labor delegation to be
fully engaged in the UN process at the Copenhagen conference, said:
"The
statements are a clear sign that U.S. unions want to bring scientific
necessity into alignment with job creation and green economic
development. Many other unions are also moving in this direction.
Engaging with unions overseas has also helped U.S. unions to see
support for climate protection is also an act of international
solidarity."
Unions and targets
Both union
statements gave support to the more limited climate protection measures
proposed by President Barack Obama on the eve of the Copenhagen
summit. They also endorsed the climate legislation introduced by
Senators Kerry and Boxer. But they argued that reductions to address
the climate emergency must go substantially further. They noted that
President Obama's commitment of 17 percent reduction on 2005 levels is
only 4 percent below 1990 levels, which have been widely used as a
benchmark in international scientific discussions.
The
SEIU-LIUNA statement points out this means extreme, perhaps impossible
reductions will be necessary later to meet the targets science says are
necessary.
"To reach an 80% reduction by 2050, the
scientific consensus, with an only 4% reduction by 2020 means that
there must be a 76% reduction over the last three decades or roughly
25% per decade. We find it difficult to justify backloading this
obligation in a way that shifts the burden of reducing carbon emissions
from ourselves to our children and grandchildren. Accordingly, we
would support more aggressive carbon emission reduction policies."
It
said that "an aggressive and science-based approach to emissions
reductions" is "absolutely necessary" for "achieving a sustainable
environment."
Until now few if any US unions and neither of
the major labor federations, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, have
supported specific emission reduction targets or even gone on record
for the principle of making the reductions called for by scientific
consensus. This is largely because only a few unions with a direct
stake in the issue, notably in the energy and manufacturing sectors,
have opposed such measures.
Their stand brings these three
unions in line with the position of the International Trade Union
Confederation (ITUC), an organization that represents national union
federations with membership of 175 million workers in 155 countries.
It organized the international trade union delegation to the Copenhagen
conference and strongly supported the IPCC targets.
An article
published by the BNA reported that the AFL-CIO had issued its own
position paper at the Poznan climate talks supporting ITUC concerns for
"decent work, green jobs, industrial regeneration, border adjustment
mechanisms and worker adjustment mechanisms" but failing to indicate
support for the targets and timetables at the core of the ITUC
position. The BNA reported that, "U.S. labor unions balked at backing
ITUC's position, given fears that deep cuts would 'devastate' heavy
manufacturing in the United States as well as the coal and steel
industries."
Labor's traditional approach to climate policy
was largely shaped by industries in the manufacturing and energy
sectors. That is likely to change, however, as a result of the
changing sectoral center of gravity with organized labor. According to
a recent study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, barely
one union member in ten works in manufacturing. An even smaller
proportion work in fossil fuel production.
Today the
overwhelming majority of union members are in services and the public
sector. But they have barely begun to weight in significantly on
climate policy. If the new statements by the transport, service, and
laborers unions are any indication, they are likely to favor stronger
climate protection with more stringent emission reductions. This
reflects not only the interest of their members in a livable world for
their children, but the fact that the great majority of potential green
jobs are in the building, transporation, public, and service sectors.
Why targets matter for green jobs
Both
statements emphasized that emissions reduction targets were important
to the green jobs agenda. According to the SEIU/LIUNA statement, "A
clear science-based target will drive a massive increase in the
generation of green jobs, pubic mass transit, renewable energy, green
manufacturing, energy-efficient construction and building retrofits, as
well as in other sectors."
The statement went on to describe
strong targets as critical to provide incentives for creating green
jobs. "The more ambitious the target, the stronger the political
signal to private investors and innovators who wish to serve the green
economy."
It also argued that absence of strong targets could have the opposite effect.
"A
weak target slows green job growth, serves as a drag on the global
effort, and will not serve climate stability over the long term. Jobs
that conserve energy, fight sprawl and congestion, and retool and
re-equip our industries according to green and sustainable principles
are the wave of the future for the US and with world."
The TWU
statement adds that a science-based approach to emissions reductions
will be good for our economy and for working families. "With the US
suffering over 10 percent unemployment and falling living standards, we
need to fulfill the promise of green jobs sooner, not later."
The
statements called for a "just transition" to the green economy to
provide full protections for workers negatively impacted by climate
policies. The TWU statement notes that the transition to a low carbon
economy must be pursued in a way that is "fair to workers and
supportive of impacted communities." According to the SEIU/LIUNA
statement, "Workers in energy intensive industries should not be asked
to shoulder a disproportionate burden."
Why union positions matter
Union
positions can make a big difference on climate legislation. Coal and
manufacturing unions have played a significant role in provisions in
current legislation that are favorable to their industries. CQ says
AFL-CIO support is essential to passing any climate change bill; Jason
Grumet, director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, says, "If
you don't have organized labor, you can't get something through."
Strong union support for science-based target could play a significant
role in strengthening current legislation.
The US will also
face an enormous number of climate related policy decisions in the near
and more distant future, ranging from what provisions should be in
international treaties to national policy on fuel efficiency standards
to sidewalks and bicycle lanes for local streets. Organized labor can
be a significant player in all of them. It can also play a big role in
how those policies are actually implemented in industries and
workplaces. And it can help educate its sixteen-and-a-half million
members about what climate change means for them and their children and
what has to be done about it.
The SEIU/LIUNA statement concludes,
"Our
nation stands at the threshold of a dramatic transformation toward a
clean, green and sustainable economy. Ambitious reduction targets for
2020 and beyond can help drive this transformation."
The new
union statements supporting science-based targets could be the start of
a significant trend that could put organized labor in the forefront not
only of the green jobs movement but also of the broader movement to
protect the climate. Support for targets and strong policies to
implement them will position labor as a progressive social force and a
leading player in the emerging movement for sustainability. According
to Joe Uehlein, former director of the AFL-CIO Center for Strategic
Campaigns and a founder of the Labor Network for Sustainability:
"This
is an opportunity for all of labor to step up to the plate for what
science says is necessary to protect the planet. That's what we have to
do if we want our society to be sustainable. That isn't only good for
the planet - it's good for labor."