How Can Unions Fit into Industry-Driven Climate Agreements?

Bob Baugh, executive director of the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council and co-chair of the AFL-CIO Energy Task Force, has recently returned from Bonn, Germany, where he participated in meetings to ensure that labor’s input contributes to larger United Nations climate change discussions later this year. This report follows up on his first three blogs from Bonn here, here and here. 

Climate talks in Bonn have gone slowly. Developing nations have been claiming that developed nations have all the “historic responsibility” for acting on climate change and they have none. At another level, the undercurrent was all about the major diplomatic initiative in Beijing led by Todd Stern, U.S. special envoy for climate. Jonathan Pershing, the U.S. delegation leader, left Bonn to join him in China. 

Upon his return to Bonn, Pershing said the discussions had been productive. He said they had discussed the idea of a joint research and development agenda, and although no decisions had been made, “that was to be expected for a first meeting.” It makes sense but the media tended to report it as a disappointment because there was no “breakthrough announcement.” That’s the nature of the high expectations and recognition that the U.S.-China relationship is one of the keys to achieving a global climate agreement. 

The Bonn talks are not the only setting for resolving key issues to reach an agreement. There are bilateral talks like the ones with the Chinese government and multilateral ones with the major economies scheduled after the upcoming G8 meeting. There also are the sectoral (industry) talks occurring at a global level. Sector agreements are not a focus of the U.N. climate change process, but they can become part of the solution. These involve major energy-intensive industries working within their sectors to see if they can come to a voluntary agreement on an approache to climate change. 

Manufacturers of cement and steel, two of the biggest carbon emitters, are trying to design a climate pact for their industries. Both use a lot of energy, but they also use coal as a feedstock—a necessary ingredient that is part of the chemistry of making steel and cement. There was much talk of recent breakthroughs in the cement sector. One meeting featured the findings of a new report from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development Cement Sustainability Initiative on the potential benefits of a sectoral approach. The World Steel Association is also working on one. 

Says Rob Johnson of the International Metalworkers Federation (IMF):

Sectoral agreements are a promising development, but they are voluntary business initiatives that promote self-regulation, and therein lies the problem.

There is no real engagement of unions in the World Steel Association process now, and the union movement’s skepticism of voluntary programs run only by employers is based on experience. The IMF believes there must be a regulatory role for government. Unions have attempted to open a dialogue, but it appears the presence of major nonunion firms in the World Steel Association may stand in the way.    

The IMF has a lot to offer. Late last year, the IMF steel sector members adopted a groundbreaking global strategy for climate change. They have committed to developing policy positions on climate change issues that link environmental and economic sustainability. And they are committed to ensuring that “revenue generated by any international trading, permit or carbon tax scheme should be used to benefit the workers in affected industries, support low-carbon innovation and technological development and for climate change mitigation and adaptation project.” The work of the steel group on climate has influenced the rest of the IMF. It intends to expand this agreement into their other sectors: auto, aluminum, aerospace and electronics. 

Brian Kohler, health and safety director of the International Federation of Chemical Energy and Mine and General Workers Union (ICEM) and one of our fellow International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) delegates in Bonn, reports union leaders in those sectors also are concerned about the lack of labor input within the cement sector. Like the IMF, those union bodies have worked at developing a new “Sustainable Development Policy.” 

Kohler says there is a clear recognition of the need for environmental protection because “there are no jobs on a dead planet.” He also noted that the “free market will not support a fair and just transition.” That is why the unions of the ICEM, like the IMF, are fighting for environmental responsibility and good jobs in vibrant technologically competent industries, as well as for economic and social policies that support both.

The AFL-CIO understands this. It is the same fight whether you are in Bonn or in Washington, D.C.

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article |Comments (0)