Nous avons atteint un point important dans les n\u00e9gociations. Les expos\u00e9s techniques sont termin\u00e9s. Nous, d\u00e9l\u00e9gu\u00e9s issus du monde syndical, avons fait valoir nos arguments aupr\u00e8s de tous les n\u00e9gociateurs que nous avons pu approcher. Les participants ont travaill\u00e9 aujourd’hui sur un texte \u00e0 pr\u00e9senter aux d\u00e9cideurs politiques, qui en th\u00e9orie devrait \u00eatre pratiquement le texte final. Les groupes de travail et les organes subsidiaires devraient conclure aujourd’hui et pr\u00e9senter leur travail d\u00e9finitif.<\/p>
Et pourtant, pour ce qui est des n\u00e9gociations sur le climat, lundi a \u00e9t\u00e9 une journ\u00e9e d\u00e9cevante… J’ai l’impression qu’une fois de plus, les n\u00e9gociateurs cherchent la formulation la plus l\u00e9g\u00e8re qu’ils puissent trouver, se livrent \u00e0 des jeux politiques insens\u00e9s les uns avec les autres, tout en ignorant l’urgence r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9e par la science, la col\u00e8re croissante du public et la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d’agir.<\/p>
Les discussions sur les mesures \u00e0 prendre n’ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 finalis\u00e9es, ni samedi, ni dimanche, et la question \u00e9pineuse de l’article 6 (march\u00e9s potentiels d’\u00e9change de droits d’\u00e9mission de carbone) continue d’\u00eatre une gabegie. Les n\u00e9gociateurs semblent plus int\u00e9ress\u00e9s \u00e0 marquer des points qu’\u00e0 r\u00e9diger un texte clair qui prot\u00e8ge l’environnement et les droits de l’homme. L’article 6 est la seule partie de l’Accord de Paris pour laquelle les r\u00e8gles n’ont pas encore \u00e9t\u00e9 fix\u00e9es. L’\u00e9change de droits d’\u00e9mission sans garanties pour prot\u00e9ger les droits de l’homme et les droits des autochtones pourrait \u00eatre catastrophique. Pour cette raison, il est tout \u00e0 fait possible qu’il soit pr\u00e9f\u00e9rable de ne pas avoir de d\u00e9cision sur l’article 6 plut\u00f4t qu’un mauvais ensemble de dispositions. Si nous nous retrouvons coinc\u00e9s avec de mauvaises r\u00e8gles, cela cr\u00e9era une faille dans l’Accord de Paris. Le dernier texte ne fait pas mention des protections sociales et des droits de l’homme et ne prot\u00e8ge pas non plus l’environnement d’abus commis au d\u00e9part d’un syst\u00e8me d’\u00e9change mal con\u00e7u. Il ne reste qu’une reformulation affaiblie de certains termes du pr\u00e9ambule de l’Accord de Paris. C’est inacceptable.<\/p>
Des n\u00e9gociations compl\u00e9mentaires concernant le financement des pertes et pr\u00e9judices restent \u00e9galement en suspens. De m\u00eame, le Fonds vert pour le climat reste de mani\u00e8re d\u00e9solante en-de\u00e7\u00e0 des engagements dont il a besoin et d\u00e9j\u00e0 pris par les pays d\u00e9velopp\u00e9s.<\/p>
Permettez-moi de r\u00e9p\u00e9ter qu’en d\u00e9pit du remue-m\u00e9nage fait autour des sommes n\u00e9cessaires, le montant est insignifiant par rapport \u00e0 ce qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9pens\u00e9 pour renflouer les banques en 2009, ou par rapport aux d\u00e9penses militaires mondiales, pour ne citer que deux exemples. D’autres alternatives pour remplir ces comptes comprennent une taxe carbone ou une taxe Tobin (sur les transactions financi\u00e8res). Ce n’est pas une question de manque de ressources. C’est une question de priorit\u00e9s et de volont\u00e9 politiques.<\/p>
Une mise en \u0153uvre sensible aux questions de genre peut permettre aux parties d’acc\u00e9l\u00e9rer une Transition juste pour la population active. Malgr\u00e9 ce qui semblait \u00eatre un bon d\u00e9but, les n\u00e9gociateurs sont occup\u00e9s \u00e0 proposer des termes plus faibles ici aussi.<\/p>
\u00c0 l’heure o\u00f9 autorit\u00e9 et ambition sont n\u00e9cessaires, nos n\u00e9gociateurs sur le climat se disent les uns aux autres : “Quels sont ici les termes les plus faibles avec lesquels nous puissions nous en tirer” ?<\/p>
Tout n’est pas sombre : certains pays ont annonc\u00e9 des objectifs ambitieux de r\u00e9duction des \u00e9missions.<\/p>
Rencontre syndicale parall\u00e8le<\/p>
Aujourd’hui a eu lieu l’importante rencontre syndicale parall\u00e8le, Just Transition for Climate Ambition (Transition juste pour une ambition climatique). Parmi les pan\u00e9listes qui ont pris la parole et le message qu’ils ont livr\u00e9, on retrouvait :<\/p>
Mod\u00e9ratrices :<\/p>
Cette rencontre \u00e9tait plut\u00f4t r\u00e9ussie et mes remarques ont \u00e9t\u00e9 bien accueillies et de nombreux participants ont souhait\u00e9 s’entretenir avec moi \u00e0 l’issue de la rencontre.<\/p>
Voici une transcription approximative (uniquement disponible en anglais) de ce que j’y ai dit :<\/p>
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> Let’s plan a Just Transition to a future that sounds good to people! And let’s deliver it! We can do it!<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> (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.)<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> 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!<\/em><\/p> 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?<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> You know, you have probably seen, Trade Union’s Topline Demands for COP25. They are: <\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> 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!<\/em><\/p> 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.<\/em><\/p> 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?<\/em><\/p> That’s my question and my challenge. Thank you.<\/em><\/p> – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","issues":[393],"companies":[],"regions":[202,246],"sectors":[],"article_tags":[507],"class_list":["post-145919","article","type-article","status-publish","hentry","issues-climate-change-just-transition","regions-europe","regions-spain","article_tags-cop"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n