image The updated version of the Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Group’s pamphlet One million climate jobs was launched on Thursday evening  in the House of Commons , a large building in central London which is a shrine to tacky Victorian bling and British imperialism. It also has a mouse problem or, depending on your perspective, the mice have a Con Dem problem.

Under an immense painting of King Alfred inciting the Saxons to prevent the landing of the Danes (sic) Green MP Caroline Lucas, Jonathan Neale for the campaign, the TUC’s Philip Pearson, John Mc Donnell and Chris Baugh of the PCS set out the arguments. Here is a slightly random account of some of what they said.

Jonathan kicked off. The pamphlet argues that the government should hire one million people in a year to work in jobs that will reduce the amount of carbon that goes into the atmosphere. This would cost what by current standards is a paltry £18-20bn. As Jonathan said, if the planet was a bank it would be too big to fail and governments would find the cash with no trouble at all. He observed that although we have grown used to thinking that catastrophic climate change is a generation or so away it may be on us sooner than we think. As evidence he pointed to the floods in Pakistan, the failure of the Asian monsoons and the droughts in Syria and Iraq which have displaced hundreds of thousands of people.

Caroline Lucas welcomed the rapprochement between trade unionists, Greens and environmental activists which has happened in recent years and went on to suggest that workers need to be involved in planning a carbon neutral future. In her opinion the pamphlet provides the answer to the question "what’s your alternative?" Although she did use the expression "win win solution" and appeared to mean it she made up for this lapse by raising the question of what kind of development and growth are possible on a planet with finite resources, an issue a handsome, charming and articulate contributor explored a bit further in the discussion from the floor.

Philip Pearson from the TUC argued that the Con Dems will axe one million jobs with their cuts strategy and the losses will be equally divided between the private and public sectors. He went into some detail about the impact of Con Dem policy on even the modest efforts at carbon reduction made by New Labour.

P1010503

Kondratieff probably doesn’t get many shout outs in parliamentary committee rooms but John McDonnell began by quibbling with his timings. John reckons that big crises and opportunities come along every twenty five rather than fifty years. He also described how some of the new Tory intake laughed when he said to them "I’m not a Keynsian, I’m a Marxist". For John it’s a classic capitalist crisis straight out of Capital vol.2. The ruling class is trying to increase the rate of profit by driving down wage and creating a reserve army of labour and the cuts that they plan to make will exacerbate climate change.

Next week, he explained, the debate on cuts will move from abstraction to reality for millions of people.He predicted that this is only the first wave and the markets will force Osborne to return next spring with more. For our side this is a moment of potential opportunity.and a chance to move the debate onto how the system has failed. The unions will be the site of the most consistent source of mass opposition and the growing connection between the unions and the environmental movement is a big step forward.

John reckons that we are now entering a revolutionary period in which millions will begin to question how the capitalist system works. He wasn’t implying that the overthrow of the bourgeoisie is just around the corner but he was clear that the coalition is pretty fragile and that the Lib Dems are starting to ask themselves what exactly they are doing.

The kindest thing he had to say about the new shadow cabinet is that they are blank sheets of paper and career politicians with no ideology. That’s pretty generous. In fact he was a bit vague about who some of them were. However his point was that if there is a big enough movement they will absorb some of its politics and demands.  Oh yeah, he said that we might have expected to be grateful that a former climate change minister is now Labour leader. But he pointed out "that toaster supported the new runway at Heathrow". I think he said "toaster". It definitely started with "t" and ended with "er".

Last up was Chris Baugh of the PCS but by this point I’d stopped taking notes. You’ll just have to accept my assurance that Chris spoke a lot of sense.

Climate change is still the major danger faced by the working class and poor of the world. This pamphlet is a modest step in building a movement to offer a solution that favours the interests of the majority of humanity. For that reason it’s important and you should order a load of copies for your union branch.

9 responses to “One million climate jobs launch”

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Googlyfish Pakistan and Googlyfish Pakistan, Liam Mac Uaid. Liam Mac Uaid said: One million climate jobs launch: http://wp.me/p5JDA-1jz […]

    Like

  2. Liam, can I half inch this and publish it on Naturalchoices- with dues links back of course?

    Like

  3. Pete, others do it without either asking or crediting. Please do.

    Like

  4. I think we should at least ask for 2 million green jobs.

    Like

  5. “the floods in Pakistan, the failure of the Asian monsoons and the droughts in Syria and Iraq..”

    The freakish Russian Heatwave in July-August should be included in that list too.
    Western Russia and the Ukraine were about 3.6 standard deviations from their historical mean temperature.
    So it’s unlikely to have been so hot there in the last 3.000 years or more.

    As a result of the heat and smog, the mortality rate more than doubled.
    In August 2010 there were 15,016 deaths in Moscow, compared with 8,905 for the same period last year.
    In July 2010 there were 4,824 more deaths compared to July 2009.
    Meaning a total of 10,935 more deaths, a 60 per cent rise in the mortality rate.
    A similar increase in the mortality rate was seen during the heatwave in Paris during 2003.

    Referring to the Pakistan Floods and Russian Heatwave James Hansen said:
    ‘would these events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm?”, an appropriate answer in that case is ‘almost certainly not.’

    Globally, NASA estimates that 2010 is vying with 2005 as the warmest year in their instrumental record.
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100930/

    Meanwhile the trendline of Arctic Sea Ice is continuing downward.

    The ice is a buffer against serious positive feeback events, such as loss of the sea-ice albedo effect and rapid methane release from melting permafrost.
    Unfortunately, the melting Arctic is becoming the scene of a new economic cold war between Russia and the USA over oil, minerals and new sea lanes.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/11/nato-conflict-arctic-resources

    Only a massive programme to adopt renewable energy can mitigate the effects of global warming.
    But the adoption of such a programme faces huge technological inertia and opposition from capitalist vested interests.

    A sober scientific analysis of the scale of the problem involved is contained in this post by Mathematical physicist John Baez (Joan’s cousin),
    He has recently moved to Singapore and turned his attention to “what scientists can do to help save a planet in crisis.”

    Power Density

    See also, “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air” by David JC MacKay, Professor of Natural Philosophy,
    Department of Physics, University of Cambridge
    online here:- http://www.withouthotair.com/

    The arguments contained in the CCTU “One Million Climate Jobs” pamphlet need to be applied in every struggle against cuts and redundancies.

    Like

  6. Prianikoff’s link to the blog by John Baez is interesting, but it does not support his previous statement that “Only a massive programme to adopt renewable energy can mitigate the effects of global warming”.

    Rather, it suggests that, at today’s levels of energy consumption, this is physically impossible, as all RE systems (apart from nuclear power, which has its own problems) have too low an energy density, occupy too much land and require too much plant per unit output to be viable on this kind of scale.

    There needs to be a progamme of reduction of energy use, say to 1/4 of current levels. This is ultimately incompatible with the continued existence of captialism, which explains why nothing is being done about climate change by said system.

    Like

  7. “Until recently, few people gave much thought to the hostile northerly territories known as the Arctic Circle. Aside from some brave polar bears and indigenous peoples, it was largely considered a dead zone. But rapidly melting ice shelves due to rising global temperatures has challenged those notions, as once-frozen shipping lanes are opening up, as well as the potential for tapping into the largest non-renewable energy resources in the world…..”One quarter of the world’s reserves of oil and gas are believed to lie beneath the Arctic Ocean.”

    from “Russia Today” Sept 22nd

    http://rt.com/Politics/2010-09-22/russia-arctic-forum-resources.html

    “Northwest Passage”
    The alternative Canadian National Anthem, by Stan Rogers:-

    Like

  8. “There needs to be a progamme of reduction of energy use, say to 1/4 of current levels.”

    I think the Baez blog post is designed to stir up a debate, rather than being the definitive statement.
    e.g. MacKay’s book, linked to above (Part II Chapter 27)
    has 5 energy plans, with various balances of Wind, Solar, Biomass, Nuclear & CCS options, .

    http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c27/page_203.shtml

    Rather than this being an abstract scientific debate, it corresponds to political programmes, including the arguments in the “One Million Climte Jobs” leaflet.
    Socialists need to take sides on issues like this and make their views known.

    I agree on your argument about greater energy efficiency, as long as it doesn’t mean reduction of living standards, which I think it’s impossible for socialists/ trade unionists to argue for.

    Some of this could be achieved via more & better public transport, electric vehicles, better home insulation etc.
    But ultimately, the question of methods of energy production is the most crucial one.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending