Global Labor Strategies: Turtles and Teamsters Together Again?

(second in a series on labor and global warming after Bali)

At the 1999 “Battle of Seattle” against the World Trade Organization, a prominent sign celebrated the emerging labor-environmental coalition with the slogan, “Turtles and Teamsters: Together at Last!” The threat of global warming is updating that slogan to “Turtles and Teamsters: Together Again.”

At the core of this convergence has been the mantra “green jobs.” While some in the labor movement have long feared that environmental policies would lead to the loss of jobs, others have long argued that appropriate environmental strategies would lead to a much greater increase in “green jobs.”

The green jobs argument has been greatly strengthened by the emergence of global warming as a national, local, and global issue. Scientists have established that limiting the catastrophic results of global warming requires massive cuts in the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. And that in turn will take a complete reconstruction of our economies to run on a low-carbon basis. Such a reconstruction will take massive investment – and create millions of jobs.

The coming-of-age party for this alliance may well be “Good Jobs, Green Jobs: A National Green Jobs Conference” scheduled for March 13-14 in Pittsburgh, PA. The event is coordinated by the Blue-Green Alliance, a “strategic partnership” of the United Steelworkers union and the environmentalist Sierra Club. The conference will bring together advocates representing “local, state and federal policy makers; labor; business; the environment and public health; economic and workforce development specialists; investors; and scientists and technology experts.” The aim is to launch a “nationwide dialogue about moving our country rapidly toward leadership in promoting a new green economy.”

Conveners of the conference include heavy hitters from organized labor, including some who have previously held aloof from actions addressed to global warming. Both U.S. labor federations, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, are listed as conveners. So are such unions as the Service Employees, Industrial Division of the Communication Workers, Operating Engineers Local 95, United Food and Commercial workers, and United Steelworkers.

A lesson from Australia?

New York mayor Michael Blumberg recently stated that global warming won’t be on the agenda at the next election. “It’s not really discussed by the presidential candidates.” But public concern is forcing presidential frontrunners to address global warming. Indeed, all presidential candidates who have not taken global warming seriously have dropped out or been marginalized.

According to a July, 2007 Gallup poll, 62 percent of Americans now believe that global warming is an urgent threat requiring immediate and drastic action. 68 percent favor, at least in principle, an international treaty that requires the US to cut carbon dioxide emissions 90 percent by 2050. According to polling by GlobeScan, 77 percent want to limit greenhouse gas production by companies. Nearly 60 percent believe it will be “necessary to take major steps very soon.” In a Sacred Heart University Polling Institute study, the environment rated highest among seven issues that would affect Americans’ presidential voting. 93 percent of respondents say they would be more likely to support a candidate who promises action to improve the environment – more than the proportion who want a candidate who will maintain a strong military.

Green jobs have become a major campaign issue for Democratic presidential candidates. All the major Democratic candidates endorsed legislation calling for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – roughly in line with what climate scientists say is necessary to limit destructive climate change.

Hillary Clinton supports a cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions and a $50 billion clean energy fund to help create 5 million new jobs. She says all new coal plants should be required to capture their carbon.

Barack Obama has proposes economy-wide limits on emissions and a system that would require large emitters of carbon to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gasses and raising fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Obama co-sponsored a fuel-from-coal bill, but reversed himself under pressure and said he would only support clean coal initiatives that would reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent as compared with conventional fuels.8 Part of that pressure came from a labor-environmental alliance.

Republican front-runner John McCain says he will make global warming one of his top three priorities as President. He was sponsor of an early bill on global warming, but it called for reducing carbon emissions by only 65 percent by 2050. He is a fervent supporter of nuclear power. Other Republican candidates have issued no comprehensive plans for addressing global warming.

Despite public concern and candidate attention to global warming, the media has virtually suppressed the issue. The League of Conservation voters tracked the questions asked of presidential candidates on the Sunday news shows and televised debates. David Sandretti, spokesman for the League, says the results were “stunning.” Of the more than 2,900 questions asked, only four have mentioned the words “global warming.” Wolf Blitzer has asked 440 questions and Chris Wallace has asked 572 questions; two for each mentioned global warming. George Stephanopoulos and Bob Schieffer asked 778 and 279 questions respectively – none of which mentioned global warming.

The Blue-Green Alliance has called on presidential candidates to commit to:

• A 2% reduction in carbon emissions every year

• A 2% increase in manufacturing jobs based on a new energy economy

• Rewriting American trade laws to advance labor and environmental standards

The Green Jobs conference may be particularly will positioned – both in time and in geography – to jump-start this part of the presidential debate. And, given the growing public concern about global warming, it could prove critical. The Australian Labor Party recently drove a prime minister more than vaguely reminiscent of George W. Bush out of office in a historical electoral upset. Australian trade unionists proudly state that they invested more than $1 million to highlight the importance of global warming in the election – and that it became a central issue in the defeat of the conservatives. In the aftermath of the election, the new prime minister traveled to the UN climate change conference in Bali to sign the Kyoto climate change agreement – leaving George Bush as the only leader of a major country not to sign.

Even if a candidate who campaigned on green jobs is elected, labor and environmental allies will need to hold them accountable in office. They will need to remember that President Bill Clinton campaigned on a plan to create new jobs through massive public investment, but ditched it in favor of balancing the budget once he came into office. University of Miami political scientist George Gonzales recently commented on the presidential candidates’ global warming promises: “Can we understand how they will govern based on how they campaign? Unfortunately not.”

What will matter is the balance of pressure on them between the “friends of global warming” and the public’s demand for an effective response to the threat of climate change.

Y.R.