This paper has been written to help unions representing workers in all sectors get a clear sense of what is presently happening in terms of the health impact of fossil fuel use and what could also happen if present patterns in energy use continue into the future. The data are presented in a way that unions can use to more effectively advocate both for their members and the broader public.

‍

The need to “put a price on carbon” in order to drive and incentivize low-carbon investment patterns and industrial practices has stood at the heart of neoliberal climate policy since the early 1990s. This paper takes a critical look at this core policy commitment, particularly emissions trading, and how unions have responded to it.

Trade unions — especially those representing workers in power generation and energy-intensive industries — have generally supported CCS. This paper presents two sets of data that should lead them to reconsider. These data are presented as two scenarios labeled “CCS non-deployment” and “CCS deployment.” This paper argues that the problems associated with either scenario are serious enough to require a thorough re-evaluation of trade union support for CCS. It also urges unions to commit to developing a third scenario, one that is based on a willingness to challenge the assumption that the demand for energy will continue to rise and that “growth” as traditionally understood can continue in a more or less uninterrupted fashion. A third scenario will also be anchored in public ownership and the reclaiming of energy resources, infrastructure, and options to the public sphere.

The term “energy democracy” is now part of the trade union discourse on energy and climate change in a way that was not the case just two or three years ago. A growing number of unions, as well as regional bodies like the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas, are calling for democratic control over energy, for a “reclaiming” of the energy sector to the public sphere and for a just transition to a renewables-based, low-carbon economy. But the actual and potential content behind the term “energy democracy” needs to be fleshed out. Unions can engage in this struggle in a manner that could increase worker and community control over electrical power generation and, potentially, build unions.

The goal of this paper is to show how economic crisis and austerity, which today serves as the perfect cover for inaction and reversals on climate protection and ecological sustainability, could actually spur a radical departure from the slow and stuttering progress of the recent past. The paper looks at the opportunities for such a departure in Greece, a country mired in debt, high unemployment, and on the receiving end of a full-blown austerity program. But Greece is also a country where the radical Left could soon be in power led by a party, SYRIZA, that’s committed to nothing less than the “ecological transformation of the economy.”

Trade unions — especially those representing workers in power generation and energy-intensive industries — have generally supported CCS. This paper presents two sets of data that should lead them to reconsider. These data are presented as two scenarios labeled “CCS non-deployment” and “CCS deployment.” This paper argues that the problems associated with either scenario are serious enough to require a thorough re-evaluation of trade union support for CCS. It also urges unions to commit to developing a third scenario, one that is based on a willingness to challenge the assumption that the demand for energy will continue to rise and that “growth” as traditionally understood can continue in a more or less uninterrupted fashion. A third scenario will also be anchored in public ownership and the reclaiming of energy resources, infrastructure, and options to the public sphere.