For a preview of what may happen when it comes time to pass federal cap and trade legislation, look to Maryland. A state bill calling for dramatic reductions in carbon emissions failed there last week because of worries it would cost jobs and hurt the economy:
Environmental activists couldn’t work out a compromise with unions and industry groups that feared the plan would cost jobs.
The sticking point was how Maryland would achieve reductions in greenhouse gases blamed for climate change. The bill called for dramatic reductions in carbon emissions — and a goal of slashing them 90 percent by 2050 - but the bill was vague about how that would happen.
The Department of Environment was charged with enforcing the cuts, and industry groups worried the enforcement could bring draconian measures that would put factories out of business.
More than 50 steelworkers wearing hardhats greeted lawmakers as they came to work Monday, and they whooped 12 hours later when they learned the bill was rejected.
–AP
Those 50 cheering steelworkers foreshadow the struggle we should anticipate when we try to pass cap and trade at the national level. Most major environmental groups have been calling for a bill that avoids giveaways to Big Oil and Big Coal, but the case in Maryland is a reminder that these monolithic bad guys aren’t the only things standing in the way of getting strong legislation on climate. What’s missing is a significant package to address the economy and energy prices — without it, this may turn into a fight between environmentalist elites and the working class.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
I’m disappointed that this post in effect perpetuates the false economy-environment divide and the conservative myth that “environmentalist elites” couldn’t care less about the working class. There are plenty of activists representing low-income communities who are calling for climate change legislation, knowing that climate change will have disproportionate negative impacts on the working class. Many of the more progressive policy proposals on climate as I’m sure you are aware include cap-and-auction provisions to raise revenue, which can then be used to cushion impacts on low-income consumers, create green jobs and just transition for workers, etc. Yes, we should be realistic about how certain labor interests may oppose climate change legislation as the debate is currently framed. Lets then talk about how to get progressive messages and policies out there and shift the debate, rather than merely repeating conservative rhetoric.
As someone who was closely involved in the campaign for carbon cap legislation in MD, I would like to clarify some points made in “How not to solve Climate Change.”
Yes, the effectiveness of the Steelworkers’ Union at blocking the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act is worrisome, and something that should be brought into consideration when working to passing meaningful global warming legislation on the national level.
However, to say that this fight was indiciative of a strong divide between “environmentalist elites and the working class” is to oversimplify the situation. Instead, this was about one select group of labor advocates opposing the bill, mainly due to fearmongering and misinformation. The steelworkers who came to Annapolis in opposition to the bill were mainly employed at Sparrows’ Point Steel Mill, which has been financially insecure for many years now, and has changed owners 4 times in the past 4 years - these workers are justifiably hyper-sensitive to any possibility of losing their jobs, regardless of the actual impact the proposed legislation would have on their jobs.
In addition, there were many business groups and labor organizations that supported the legislation. Over 500 businesses signed a letter of support for the bill.
See news coverage of the press conference here: http://www.wbaltv.com/video/15454408/index.html.
The Maryland chapters of the SEIU, Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA), and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) also submitted a statement of support.
Read excerpts here: http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/blog/?p=345
My guess is that the workers do not want to take the chance on “green collar jobs” that are only on paper. I have to admit that I often hear the claim that: there will be more jobs from renewables and efficiency, the jobs will pay similar to the current energy jobs, AND the new sources will be cheaper than fixing the old ones. This would sound like a tall order, especially for someone with a high-income union job.
The last time i looked, renewable energy schemes required more steel than your average carbon intensive energy schemes!
Wind, tidal and wave energy schemes will require a hell of a lot of steel fabrication.
On the issue of trade unions, they are not IMO generally compatible with environmental issues.
The problem is that their main focus is protecting jobs in an established industry. But many green issues are about change, education, re-training etc.
In the UK, both the steel and coal industries have shrunk greatly, but generally people have moved onto new jobs (obviously not all) and possibly a new home somewhere else. This is what people do when change happens, you lose your job and then move onto the next big thing! It’s down to an individuals ability to change.
Be careful of that… If you need more steel per kw than a coal or nuclear plant that means a lot of iron mining and a lot of smelting. That also would mean the renewable plant would be costly as you are using more labor and material while paying union wages. And we haven’t talked about the steel or other materials needed for energy storage and new grid facilities. It may be cheaper to use current technology to roll carbon back some, then followed by other sources (and storage technologies) as they become more economic.
Jobs vs. Environment is a favorite obfuscation of the conflict between businesses on the one side and labor and nature on the other. Environmental regulation, safety regulations, and wage increases are all fundamentally in conflict with the interests of big business.
It is a huge mistake, and an example of elitism, to try and reduce real fears of economic survival to a condescending neo-conservative demand that they pull themselves up by their bootstraps without addressing the larger social structures (e.g. free trade agreements effect on the domestic steel industry) involved. The same argument to “pick up your life and move somewhere else ’cause things have changed” is given to folks who have lived in the Appalachian mountains for generations by the coal companies poisoning their well water for a higher return on investment.
The more vulnerable workers are to the vagaries of the market the easier it is for the folks who get rich off their backs to press them into service against environmental regulation. Basic programs like a universal single-payer health care system and guaranteed living standard welfare system (like they have in every other “developed” country) would go a long way toward undermining this tried and true tactic.
R Margolis,
The lifecycle per kilo-watt hour carbon footprint of a wind turbine is some 200 times lower than a coal fired power station and that takes into account both the largish amounts of steel and concrete used in turbine construction and installation.
gooseberry,
Agreed on coal, however wind and nuclear have a similar carbon footprint. My guess is that we will need both wind and nuclear if the goal is to replace coal.