Climate change mitigation: what does it mean for trade unions and workers? Pre-orientation meeting COP13, Bali

Outline What is mitigation? How much reduction in GHG emissions ? and when? How GHG emissions can be reduced? The economics of climate change : Stern report Impact of mitigation policies on employment

Mitigation To reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions Art. 2 of the UN Framework Convention on climate change: ‘To stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level which will avoid dangerous climate change, allowing ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, ensuring food production is not threatened and enabling economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner ’ Two key questions  What are the criteria to define limits to climate changes?  To what extent is mitigation compatible with economic development ? Decoupling economic growth from GHG emissions

How much reduction in GHG is needed? IPCC 4th Assessment report Adaptation can not be a substitute for mitigation – mitigation will always be required to avoid dangerous and irreversible changes to the climate system The lower the final CO2 stabilisation target level, the earlier global CO2 emissions have to peak (eg ppm ~ 2015) Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels

Characteristics of stabilisation scenarios (IPCC FAR) Category CO2-eq concentrations (ppm) Global mean temperature increase above preindustrial Peaking year for CO2 emisisons Changes in global CO2 emissions in 2050 (% of 2000 emissions) I to -50 II to -30 III to +5 IV to +60 V to +85 VI to +140

Peak in 2015

Good news: Technology already exists Potential could offset the projected growth of global emissions, or reduce emissions below current levels Substantial mitigation opportunities involving net benefits (costs less than 0), with a large share being located in the buildings sector.

All sectors and regions have the potential to contribute

Energy efficiency plays the most significant role in the CO2 reductions by 2030 (source IEA) Source: Energy Technology Perspectives, IEA Energy efficiency is the single largest contributor to CO2 reductions, is cost-effective and reduces energy dependency

A diverse portfolio approach will be needed but some features are clear Energy Efficiency … available now at low or no cost ! Natural Gas, Coal … with CO2 capture & storage Biofuels, Renewables … with lower costs and sustainable carbon cycle Nuclear.… with safe waste management H2 & Fuel Cells … with lower cost Strong reduction from deforestation are needed… through sustainable management of forests

The importance of RD&D policies Deployment of low-GHG emission technologies and RD&D would be required for achieving stabilization targets and cost reduction. The lower the stabilization levels, especially those of 550 ppm CO2-eq or lower, the greater the need for more efficient RD&D efforts and investment in new technologies during the next few decades. Government support through financial contributions, tax credits, standard setting and market creation is important for effective technology development, innovation and deployment. Government funding for most energy research programmes has been flat or declining for nearly two decades (even after the UNFCCC came into force); now about half of 1980 level.

R&D Nuclear has had the largest share Substantial additional investments in and policies for R&D are needed

Changes in lifestyle and behaviour patterns can contribute to climate change mitigation IPCC 4th Assessment report: Education and training programmes can help overcome barriers to the market acceptance of energy efficiency Reduction of car usage and efficient driving style, in relation to urban planning and availability of public transport In industry, management tools that include staff training, reward systems, regular feedback, documentation of existing practices

Overall economic impact Stern report Stern report: costs of inaction almost certainly very high, whereas mitigation costs comparatively limited If no action is taken the costs will represent at least 5% of GDP each year. Allowing for other factors, the figure could be as high as 20%! On the other hand the policies necessary to stabilise global greenhouse gas concentrations and thus temperatures are estimated at around 1% of GDP a year. Moreover, climate change also offers growth opportunities for those firms and countries offering ‘smart’ technologies Stern concluded: ‘Tackling climate change is the progrowth strategy; ignoring it will ultimately undermine economic growth ’

Impact of mitigation on employment ETUC study, Appolo, Dutch Energy4sure Massive and rapid technological change processes will lead to major impacts on employment in all sectors Overall, mitigation should not lead to net job losses. Jobs in activities based on conventional energy production will be replaced by jobs in labour intensive sectors Mitigation can also be positive for: energy security, health, social inclusion, air quality BUT Winning and loosing jobs are not fully substituable: redeployment of workers likely to be harmfull ‘Risks’ and ‘opportunities’ rather than ‘loosing’ and ‘winning’ activities’

New job opportunities  New energy and transport infrastructure investments in developing countries, upgrades of energy and transport infrastructure in industrialized countries  design and equipment manufacturing (Renewable energy, public transport, clean automotive tech) RES Germany: jobs  operating and maintenance for Renewable energy sources and Gas, public transport  urban planning engineers  Energy efficiency improvements in buildings  manufacturing of energy efficient appliances (ex.bulbs)  construction industry  energy savings consultants and engineers  Forest-related mitigation options

Jobs that may be negatively affected Power generation from coal (except with CCS?) and coal mines Refining Automotive industries Road freight transport if modal shift Globalised energy intensive industries, if mitigation is implemented in one country or group of countries (could also lead to higher emissions elsewhere (“carbon leakage”))

Conclusion (1) This requires a new social agenda to: –anticipate, and assist workers to adapt to change –provide education and training in the “new” sectors –improve attractiveness and working conditions in the new sectors (eg. energy services) –make sure that the burdens as well as the benefits are fairly distributed (eg. CO2 taxation) Social policies must be seen as a parallel ‘investment’ to that in resource-saving technology

Conclusion (2) The major structural changes required by any serious energy/climate policy offer considerable opportunities for trade unions because regulatory action by governments will be needed as the market can’t solve the problem; the workplace is a key arena; the scale of change is such that unions’ support will be vital. The energy issue may be a lever that can be used by unions to get what they want in important areas outside the immediate area of energy policy: e.g. worker participation in company decision making, corporate social responsibility, better working conditions/health and safety, supportive active labour market policy, support for R&D and innovation. Trade unions have the challenge of explaining to members (and policymakers) the scale of the changes required and representing the interests of ‘losers’ without blocking needed change.

ETUC study on Employment and climate change Full report is available at: