Workers and Trade Unions for Climate Solidarity by Hampton Paul

Author:Hampton, Paul
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor and Francis

Unions and neoliberal climate policy

Although much of the TUC framing of climate change was expressed in ecological modernisation language, other stances were articulated in more neoliberal terms. As discussed in Chapter 2, there are areas of symbiosis between the two main conceptions of climate politics and this is reflected in union discourses. The latter accommodation was clearest with respect to market instruments such as the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) and with the Heathrow airport expansion.

The TUC and EU ETS

Emissions trading has generally been the centrepiece of market-based, neoliberal responses to climate change. Emissions trading was proposed early in the development of climate politics and TUC officials expressed some reservations at the time. The TUC’s submission to the 1990 White Paper on the Environment stated that ‘some countries will find it extremely expensive and difficult to comply with permit standards’. It warned of the danger of a free-rider problem, which could ‘hinder agreement on new targets, as countries with high compliance costs will be concerned at the impact on their domestic industries’. However, the TUC also saw the advantages of traded permits between governments. This could mean ‘some of the industrialised countries, at the moment some of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases, purchasing permits from less developed countries’. This would allow ‘the industrialised world to ease the cost of transition towards less polluting production and could provide developing countries with valuable foreign exchange to protect their own environment and develop clean industrial technologies’. The TUC submission warned that the practicalities of such a scheme would have to be worked out, and ‘two key considerations would be the need for effective monitoring and resistance to lobbying by industrial interests for the issuing of more permits’ (TUC 1990b: 14).

TUC leaders contributed to government consultations on the various phases of EU ETS. In July 2004, TUSDAC debated the likely impact of the first phase of emissions trading on manufacturing, electricity generation, coal-fired generation, renewables and nuclear, with particular emphasis on the employment impacts (TUC 2004a: 64). The committee discussed a paper from the ISTC steel union, which argued that the way EU ETS was being introduced ‘is causing the steel unions and other unions with involvement in manufacturing and electricity generation some problems’. It warned of the possible closure of the Corus plant on Teesside. The ISTC paper argued in market terms that ‘the British steel industry and manufacturing generally will be put at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of the EU because of the unduly rigorous way British ministers are approaching their commitments’ (ISTC 2004: 1–2). Subsequently, Congress noted that ‘there is considerable uncertainty about the implications of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme for prices, investment and employment’ (TUC 2004b: 25).

The renewed priority given to climate change during the third term of the Labour government convinced many union officials to back EU ETS and use it for both environmental and industrial objectives. TUSDAC’s assessment of Phase II recognised ‘the central importance of the ETS in reaching the UK’s

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.