This is an important point in the negotiations. Technical presentations are finished. Trade union delegates have been pressing our points with any negotiators we can reach. People have been working on text for presentation to the political level decision-makers, which in theory should be nearly final text, today. The working groups and subsidiary bodies should wrap up today and present their finished work.

And yet … in terms of the climate talks, Monday was a disappointment. My sense is that once again the negotiators are seeking the least and weakest wording they can find, playing foolish political games with each other, while ignoring the urgency of the science and the rising public anger and demand for action.

Response measures discussions were not finalized on Saturday or Sunday; and the thorny issue of Article 6 (potential carbon emissions trading markets) continues to be a boondoggle. Negotiators seem to be more interested in scoring points than in writing clear text that protects the environment as well as human rights. Article 6 is the only part of the Paris agreement for which the rules have not yet been set. Trading in emissions without safeguards to protect human rights and indigenous rights could be catastrophic. For this reason, it is quite possible that having no decision on Article 6, may be preferable to a bad set of rules. If we are stuck with bad rules then it will create a hole in the Paris Agreement. The latest text fails to mention social and human rights protections, and also fails to protect the environment from an abuse of a poorly designed trading system. Only a weak re-statement of some of the words from the Paris Agreement preamble, remains. This is unacceptable.

Additional negotiations around finance for loss and damage, also remain unresolved. Likewise, the Green Climate Fund remains woefully short of the commitments from developed countries that it needs.

Let me reiterate that despite the noise about how much money is needed, the amount is trivial next to how much was spent bailing out banks in 2009, or next to global military spending, to pick two examples. Other alternatives to fill these accounts include a carbon tax or a Tobin tax (on financial transactions). It’s not a question of lack of resources. It’s a question of political priorities and will.

Gender responsive implementation can enable parties to accelerate a Just Transition of the workforce. In spite of what seemed like a good start, negotiators are busy proposing weaker language here, as well.

At a moment in time when leadership and ambition are called for, our climate negotiators are saying to each other: “What is the least and weakest language we can get away with here”?

Not all is grim; some countries have announced ambitious emissions reductions targets.

Trade Union Side Event

Today, the important trade union side event, Just Transition for Climate Ambition, took place.  Panellists who spoke and the message they brought included:

• Ms. Laura Martín Murillo, Advisor on Employment and Just Transition, Ministry for Ecological Transition, Spain, described some of the challenges in creating a Just Transition in coal-mining regions of southern Spain
• Mr. George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy of British Columbia, Canada, spoke about how resource-based communities and First Nations responded to the consultation processes initiated by the government there.
• Ibu Nur Masripatin, former head of delegation at COP of Indonesia, explained some of the challenges experienced in Indonesia caused by corporate exploitation of palm oil, for example.
• Ms. Tamara Muñoz, International Secretary of CUT Chile, reminded everyone of the injustices presently being suffered in Chile.
• Mr. Brian Kohler, Director of Sustainability at IndustriALL Global, spoke on the need to simultaneously address climate change and Industry 4.0 via a Just Transition that would lead to a good, sustainable future.

Moderators:

• Ms. Sharan Burrow, General Secretary of the ITUC, moderated part of the discussions
• Ms. Alison Tate, ITUC Director, moderated the remaining discussions.

It was quite a successful event, and my remarks were well received; many participants wanted to talk to me after the event.

Here is a rough transcript of what I said:

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Good afternoon! IndustriALL Global Union has over 700 affiliates in 140 countries, and through our affiliates we speak for some 50 million workers, globally. These are workers in the resource, processing, and manufacturing sectors. Our members include coal miners, oil workers, energy workers, steelmakers, automobile workers, cement makers, shipbuilders, aerospace workers, electronics manufacturing, chemical workers, paper makers, and more. We create the energy and all of the industrial products that people believe are an essential part of today’s world.

Stabilizing the climate means reaching for a sustainable future: sustainable in all of its dimensions; social, economic, as well as environmental. I’m here to tell you that the way forward, if we are serious about protecting the planet, is a Just Transition that respects and protects today’s and tomorrow’s workers, their families, and the communities and cultures that rely on them.

Despite the pessimism that I am sometimes accused of, it cannot be denied that the 25th Conference of the Parties shows several positive signs. People and parties are talking seriously about the climate crisis who couldn't be bothered as recently as five years ago. Greta Thunberg arrived on Friday and the youth movement she started is having a huge impact. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets to demand action. There is no doubt that this is having an impact on the negotiators.

And Just Transition, a phrase I first used in 1994, is now on everyone’s lips, and in everyone’s position papers and policies. Or so it seems. Even those who do not really know what it means are eager to use the phrase. I’m flattered. You should be flattered. We did this. This is progress. Really.

There has been discussion at this conference about potential climate “tipping points”. Trade unions believe that there are social tipping points as well. Anger resulting from inequality, injustice, violations of human rights and the destruction of decent work and living standards – and the destruction of the environment as experienced by individuals – can also reach a tipping point. Mass public discontent could erode public support for climate action, or depending on the circumstances, harden public demands for it. Political leaders should be very wary.

Let me tell you something you really should already know, but perhaps you haven’t thought of in exactly this way: people are tired of contemplating a bleak future. Of being asked to fight for a future that might be “less bad” than it would otherwise be. But it does not have to be that way. Why can’t we promise a bright future? I could ask 50 million workers to help me fight for a good future! I can’t ask them to fight for a bleak one.

Let’s plan a Just Transition to a future that sounds good to people! And let’s deliver it! We can do it!

Here’s how. The future world of work will certainly be transformed by the need to decarbonise the economy, but changes are simultaneously being driven by a wide range of advanced and disruptive technologies being rapidly introduced in our workplaces. Some of these technologies will play a vital role in limiting climate change, although there are indeed some wild and unsubstantiated claims being made. Indeed, these drivers of change, and others such as changing demographics, cannot be considered in isolation. We are in a rapidly changing world, and I don’t simply mean the climate.

(I leave to one side, for a moment, the fact that the social implications of these changes are not being considered seriously enough, and that trade unions are the main voice for the social dimension of sustainability.)

But, look, let me make this simple. Decarbonisation of industry, along with digitalization, the “internet of things”, artificial intelligence, advanced semi-autonomous robots, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology – all of these techniques and more, sometimes labelled the Fourth Industrial Revolution or Industry 4.0 – will deliver greater productivity. This is not in doubt, because if these technologies did not promise increased productivity, we would not be witnessing the rush to adopt them. This means fewer hours of labour to produce the same goods or services.

And that means, potentially at least, a lot of good things! Increased leisure time, shorter working hours, earlier retirement, more opportunities for self-fulfilment and creativity, better access to the workplace for women and traditionally disadvantaged groups of workers, and safer healthier and more fulfilling work. All of these things should be possible! Properly deployed, these changes could takes us quite a distance towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals!

Why then are workers, globally, instead experiencing worse and more precarious jobs, “gig” work, zero-hour contracts, poorer working conditions, reduced real income, demands for raising the age of retirement, long working hours, short vacations, and resistance to even such basic demands as maternity and paternity leave? Why are trade unions under relentless attack? Why are we creating a surveillance culture, a culture of fear and hate, instead of a sense of community and a culture of happiness? Why are we not solving the climate crisis?

It is because so long as the only driving force for companies to adopt these technologies is to cut costs and increase profits, all will suffer save those few who own the technologies. The introduction of disruptive new technologies must be people-centric rather than profit-centric. We need companies, employers, who are committed to sustainable development in all of its dimensions.

But we also need sustainable industrial policies – public policies in the public interest – created via real and meaningful social dialogue. We must consciously direct these changes towards building a better world. We must simultaneously protect people and the planet, and not sacrifice both to an irresponsible search for short-term profits. To navigate these changes we need a guarantee of a genuinely Just Transition that leaves no-one behind.

If you want workers to support giving up what they are doing today, you have to tell them what they will be doing tomorrow. And it should sound good to them! That’s what a Just Transition is fundamentally about.

You know, you have probably seen, Trade Union’s Topline Demands for COP25. They are:

1. to raise ambition with Just Transition,
2. to get Parties to sign on to the Climate Action for Jobs Initiative that was launched at the Climate Action Summit in New York earlier this year; and
3. to win commitment for finance for a low-carbon development path that supports the most vulnerable.

These are not wild or unreasonable demands, in fact in many ways we are simply asking governments to do what they have already said they would.

Our demands are entirely reasonable, technically possible, and affordable. The transition to a cleaner, more sustainable economy must be economically and socially just and fair for workers and their communities. Advanced technologies, or sustainable energy, or greener industries, must benefit everyone and not just a handful of billionaires. The Paris goals are technically and economically feasible. What is lacking is the political will to take action and a Just Transition plan to maintain social coherence through the necessary transformations.

The future we seek – a Just Transition to a future in which the environment is protected and the economy is thriving – can be won with sustainable industrial policies, with strong social protections, and support for workers. It can be won by us!

That’s why trade unions demand social dialogue on these changes. We need to be at the table discussing the plan, the sustainable industrial policies, the Just Transition programmes that are necessary. Change is coming. If we are not at the table to jointly direct these changes, we fear that we’ll be on the menu.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Will you join us at that discussion table? Yes I mean you, business people. And you, representatives of governments. Could we build a sustainable future on respect, and trust, and dialogue? Will you help us lay out a better future?

That’s my question and my challenge. Thank you.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The second week of COP25 started today; and the year 2019 quickly draws to a close. Time, I have noticed, seems to make less and less sense as I get older.

Despite the pessimism that I often display, it cannot be denied that the 25th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change shows some positive signs. People and parties are talking seriously about the climate crisis who couldn't be bothered, or actively denied it, as recently as five years ago. Greta Thunberg arrived on Friday and the youth movement she started is having a huge impact. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets to demand action. There is no doubt that the negotiators inside the COP process are aware of all of this.

Today was set aside for a Trade Union Strategy day on Just Transition for Climate Action. The trade union movement is committed to making climate action central to its mission – for truly, there are no jobs on a dead planet. Just Transition is the way forward. Discussions included how to work with other civil society organizations, the role of public ownership, challenging the neoliberal narrative, and more.

Pepe Álvarez Suárez – Secretario General UGT and Unai Sordo Calvo – Secretario General CCOO, welcomed the trade union delegates to Spain and set the scene. Everyone expressed their solidarity with the Chilean people, and particularly its trade unionists, in the face of the current repression. The trade union delegation considers the Chilean Presidency of COP25 to be illigitemate. Michelle Bachelet Jeria, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and former President of Chile, addressed us on the importance of grounding climate action in human rights. Her speech was especially relevant given the present situation in her home country. Asad Rehman of War on Want spoke on the relationship between the climate crisis and human rights abuses, and challenged the trade union movement to step up and show leadership in building global solidarity for action and justice.

IndustriALL Global Union assistant general secretary Kemal Özkan spoke at today’s meeting and delivered a powerful message on how IndustriALL is demanding a Just Transition as part of its overall strategy on Sustainable Industrial Policy, and using tools such as social dialogue, Global Framework Agreements, union networks, ILO meetings, policy and guidance documents, and campaigns to make its points.

Other speakers included Unions Joaquin Perez Secretario General USO, Ludovic Voet Confederal Secretary ETUC, Jose de las Morenas de Toro (UGT), ITUC’s regional coordinators, Tara Peel (CLC), David Boys (PSI) and Samantha Smith (ITUC Just Transition Centre). 

I will speak tomorrow at a side event on Just Transition for Climate Action. The fight continues!

On Friday, a protest march demanding climate action was organized in Madrid. Trade unions took an active part in it. The organizers, Ecologistas en Acción, claimed more that 500,000 people participated. Greta Thunberg, the teenage climate activist who launched the "Fridays For Future" movement, said at the march that

“change is not going to come from the people in power, it’s going to come from the masses.”

The voice of youth have often been the most powerful at these talks, and now more than ever it is clear that a global movement of youth activists will not be silenced.

The climate march in Madrid was led by indigenous peoples from Latin America, to highlight the shame of Chile reneging, at the last minute, on its promise to host the talks – and blaming its citizens rather than the actions of the Chilean government.

The main discussions of the Subsidiary Bodies have apparently reached agreements on technology transfer, research and observation, but continue to debate several other issues: common time frames, agriculture, transparency, and of course emissions trading. Some of these will be taken up by the ministerial level delegates who are mostly arriving this weekend.

There seems to be a problem reaching an agreement on the seemingly mundane topic of the common time-frames for Nationally Determined Contributions. I had thought that this was settled in Paris, at five years. I suspect that this entire debate is malicious and in bad faith, being continued by countries that want to postpone action.

Meanwhile, a typhoon is actively wreaking damage in the Philippines. Typhoons and hurricanes are “heat engines” – they draw their energy from warm ocean water. The warmer the water, the more energy they can acquire. Warming oceans resulting from climate change are making extreme weather events both more frequent and more destructive.

This COP was also supposed to be the COP that focused more intently on oceans and polar ice. As well as the impacts already being felt by wildlife and indigenous peoples, these regions hold the keys to understanding whether we are at risk of crossing a dangerous climate “tipping point” from which we will not easily be able to return.

A tipping point is a change that could put us rather suddenly into a completely different climate reality. Think of an egg in a bowl. If I slightly tilt the bowl, the egg will roll towards one side; but if I make the bowl upright again the egg will return to the bottom of the bowl. However, if I tilt the bowl too far, the egg will roll out of the bowl and crash to the floor. Now, if I make the bowl upright again, the egg will not magically return to the bowl and re-constitute itself. It has shifted to a completely different state from which it cannot return.

It is strongly suspected by scientists that climate tipping points exist that we are not considering the risk of. One example (among several being examined) is methane frozen as methane hydrates in permafrost or at the bottom of polar oceans. If the climate warms just enough to suddenly release vast quantities of methane to the atmosphere in a short time, that would trigger a devastating tipping point.

However, climate tipping points are not the only worry.

Trade unions believe that there are social tipping points as well. Anger resulting from inequality, injustice, violations of human rights and the destruction of decent work and living standards – and the destruction of the environment as experienced by individuals – can also reach a tipping point. Mass public discontent could erode public support for climate action, or depending on the circumstances, harden public demands for it. Political leaders should be wary.

The Trade Unions for Energy Democracy (TUED) group had an off-site side event today. I could only attend part of it. IndustriALL shares TUED’s concerns that the present system is broken and has not yet delivered the needed systemic changes. The energy system is however changing, and will be radically transformed, over the next few years. Whether under public ownership or not, a Just Transition for workers, their families, and the communities and cultures that they are part of, must be guaranteed.

I have written a few times about the difficult discussions surrounding Article 6 – which implies carbon markets. The most powerful lobby group on this topic is the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) whose members include banks and investment companies, energy companies, industrial companies, and others. Shell is one of the lead organizations within IETA. While an emissions trading rulebook could have clear benefits for the environment, it is obvious that companies such as Shell would benefit greatly as well, by being able to use emissions trades to offset their business-as-usual. This is not necessarily a bad thing if it is done right, with a rulebook that enforces respect for human rights and ratchets emissions downwards rapidly – but it could be very bad if the rules are not carefully written.

Finance discussions continue – I think I have written this statement on just about every blog entry at just about every COP that I have attended. The amounts under discussion, while certainly large, are trivial next to the global military budget, or to the bailouts received by the financial sector in 2009, to pick two examples. To repeat, any resistance on the part of developed countries to fully funding finance for adaptation and loss and damage – following the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities – is a question of priorities and political will, not capacity.

As week one of COP25 drew to an end, all Parties were under pressure to produce final reports before the political level of discussions begin next week.

The COP President held an information update session for today for observer parties. Our Chilean colleague took the opportunity to remind her of Chile’s violations of human rights, and questioned her legitimacy to steer the COP. The President made a perfunctory reply about Chile’s respect for human rights but also the rule of law, as if to imply that the protestors were lawbreakers. In fact her responses to other questions were largely uninformative, as well.

Discussions continued in several areas, including Article 6. Several thorny issues remain to be settled as of my last information. The rules of the “international transfer mitigation outcomes”, which means emissions trading –  or a “carbon market” must respect human and labour rights. A positive sign is that a number of countries are now in agreement that the principle of respect for human rights is an essential feature of any market mechanism.

In yesterday’s blog post I tried to explain the complex structure of the COP25 discussions. The danger inherent in this complexity is that overall progress can be difficult to detect below the many layers of seemingly busy discussions.

The reasons for this are not hard to understand: in a multilateral exercise, the need to seek consensus in an conference where work streams and subcommittees seem to multiply, takes a lot of time.

Unfortunately, we have little time left to make progress on the problem of climate change.

Greta Thunberg, the youth climate activist, arrived today, and a protest march for climate action is scheduled for this evening.

Friday of week one is as good a time as any to reflect on the integration or intersection of several forces. Knowing that IndustriALL Global Union has done a lot of work on climate change, Just Transition, sustainable industrial policy, Industry 4.0, and the future of work, I have been asked questions about the relationship between these topics. These topics are actually quite closely related in some ways.

The future world of work will certainly be transformed by the need to decarbonise the economy, but changes are simultaneously being driven by the range of advanced and disruptive technologies being rapidly introduced in our workplaces. Indeed, these drivers of change, and others such as changing demographics and the shifting political environment, cannot be fully separated. While changing technologies will be fundamental to solving climate change, particularly in the energy sector, it is once again the potential social impacts that are being ignored. It is principally up to trade unions to make this point.

Decarbonisation of industry, along with digitalization, the “internet of things”, artificial intelligence, advanced semi-autonomous robots, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology – all of these techniques and more, sometimes labelled the Fourth Industrial Revolution or Industry 4.0 – will deliver greater productivity. This is not in doubt, because if these technologies did not promise increased productivity there would be no reason to adopt them. This means fewer hours of labour to produce the same goods or services, with the potential for increased leisure time, more opportunities for self-fulfilment and creativity, better access to the workplace for women and traditionally disadvantaged groups of workers, safer healthier and more fulfilling work. 

Why then are workers, globally, instead experiencing worse and more precarious jobs, “gig” work, zero-hour contracts, poorer working conditions, reduced real income, demands for raising the age of retirement, long working hours, short vacations, and resistance to even such basic demands as maternity and paternity leave? Why are trade unions under relentless attack? Why are we creating a surveillance culture, a culture of fear and hate, instead of a sense of community and a culture of happiness?

It is because so long as the only driving force for companies to adopt these technologies is to cut costs and increase profits, all will suffer save those few who own the technologies. The introduction of disruptive new technologies must be people-centric rather than profit-centric, guided by sustainable industrial policies – public policies in the public interest – created via real and meaningful social dialogue. To navigate these changes we need a guarantee of a genuinely Just Transition that leaves no-one behind.

Change is coming. If we are not at the table to jointly direct these changes, we’ll be on the menu.

Thursday of Week 1 means that most technical papers have been presented at the various working groups, and serious negotiations are beginning. To recap, the importance of COP25 is that the initial 5-year commitments under the Paris Agreement will be reviewed and renewed next year. We want decent jobs and we don’t want to be victims of the transition. That’s why we want Just Transition firmly embedded in as many of the new Nationally Determined Contributions that will be brought to COP26 next year, as possible.

IndustriALL frequently stresses the importance of social dialogue. For the Paris Agreement to succeed, it is important to have social dialogue in the development of policies, and especially the Nationally Determined Contributions. We need to be at the table, and not simply on the menu. The COPs have evolved considerably towards a multilateral approaches that increasingly welcomes dialogue with non-state stakeholders. But to achieve good results, trade unions must be united in our demands. We do not want any worker left behind in the coming transformations.

SBSTA and SBI Chairs meeting:

I had the opportunity to directly question the Chairs of both the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA), and the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI). On behalf of the global trade union movement I asked for clarification on the commitment to Just Transition and human and labour rights. The Chair of the SBSTA gave a very encouraging response that indicated that he understood the importance of our issues and considered them essential for a good outcome.

Response Measures

I also attended a meeting of the Response Measures group, and a side event on Just Transition. The side event was encouraging, the Response Measures meeting was less so, seeming to be mired in trivia and technicalities and unable to get at the core issues.

Carbon Capture

IndustriALL affiliate, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, in partnership with the International CCS Knowledge Center, held a well-attended information session with a video on carbon capture and sequestration.

Human Rights

In other news, young Indigenous Peoples succeeded in winning movement on incorporating human rights into Article 6 discussions, at least at this stage in the discussions. It  should not even be necessary to remind the negotiators of the importance of human rights, as the UNFCCC is a United Nations body, human rights should be a given.