One million climate jobs: solving the economic and environmental crises: a report by the Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Group reviewed by Özlem Onaran
The Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Group (CaCCTU) has published a revised second edition of its “One million climate jobs” pamphlet. This is a response by a group of trade union and climate activists to challenge the multiple crises in a constructive way. The pamphlet which is aimed at activists is backed by serious research. It is informative about the sources of greenhouse gas emissions and issues around renewable energy based on wind, wave, tide, and solar power.
The campaign proposes creating a National Climate Service in Britain (NCS) which will hire one million public sector workers within 12 months in climate jobs producing renewable energy, renovating buildings, improving public transport infrastructure, industry, and education.
The ultimate aim is to cut emissions by 80% in 20 years. The action plan is dynamic and involves retraining the climate workers to convert Britain into a zero carbon economy.
The campaign insists that these jobs should be government jobs arguing that subsidies to encourage private industry will be inefficient, slow, and insufficient.
The financing of NCS is realistically discussed based on taxation measures with proposals including an extra 5% tax on the richest 1% of the population, a “Robin Hood” tax on financial transactions, closing tax loopholes, borrowing, and monetary expansion. One reference point is the bank bailouts of 2008-09, where massive amounts of funds were mobilised in a short time span to rescue private banks, which were “too big to fail”. If the “planet is too big to fail”, then mobilising £52billion/year for NCS should be feasible.
Further positive economic spill-over effects of NCS are shown rigorously: indirect and induced employment associated with climate jobs, a decrease in unemployment and thus lower benefit payments and higher tax revenues. This is predicted to save £34billion a year. Thus the report claims that NCS and one million climate jobs would only cost the government £18billion per year.
In the next stage, two related challenges are waiting the campaign, which are so far not addressed in either edition of the pamphlet. These are the rebound effects and the ecological limits to global growth and climate justice.
First, if the campaign achieves its aim of increased efficiency in renewable energy, this may radically reduce the share of expenditures in energy in the household budget. This is the rebound effect, which has been ignored in the pamphlet. This works as an increase in the real income of the households, and triggers additional expenditure in non-energy consumption, which again increases greenhouse gas emissions.
Second, we cannot seriously solve the problem of climate change unless we face the limits to global growth[1]: if the use of environmental resources is to maintain a certain ‘sustainable’ level, global economic growth in the long term, has to be zero or low, i.e. equal to the growth rate of ‘environmental productivity’. Furthermore, advanced capitalist countries like Britain need to de-grow (slow down) to create space for development in the Global South as part of a broader strategy of climate justice. This type of zero-growth or even de-growth, however, has nothing to do with the disastrous recession caused by the crisis. This is a managed zero-growth path in the long run that redistributes existing wealth in accordance with the needs of the majority. The latter aspect of redistribution distinguishes us from those ecological economists who are concerned only with limits to growth without sufficiently challenging unequal income and wealth distribution.
If we accept the scientifically well established ecological limits to growth we need to broaden the main aim of the campaign as “the reconciliation of decent work and life with zero growth and a low carbon economy”. This brings extra dimensions to the campaign in addition to NCS and climate jobs -so far the only focus of the campaign:
The first of these is creating more labour-intensive jobs in social services such as education, child care, nursing homes, health, community and social services. By increasing employment in these services we can create decent jobs for a lower rate of growth. The need for social services is not met under the present circumstances, where they are provided either at very low wages (to ensure an adequate profit) or as a luxury service for the upper classes or via invisible unpaid female labour within the gendered division of labour in the private sphere. Thus there is massive scope for new jobs.
Secondly, to maintain full employment without growth, a substantial shortening of working time in parallel with the historical growth in productivity is required. Reduction in weekly working hours should take place without loss of wages for the majority of the wage earners, which means an increase in hourly wages. Again this is not unrealistic: compared to the 19th century, we are all working part-time today. However, it does challenge the logic of profit maximization. The minimum wage should also be adjusted upwards to a living wage level. Similarly at the top of the wage distribution, a cap on top salaries and redistribution via radically progressive income taxes is required: this not only provides funds for NCS and social spending but also cuts conspicuous consumption and consumerism in a more equal society. Once conspicuous consumption is overcome and most of the socially desirable services such as child care, education, health care, housing, transport, communication are supplied as free or affordable and old age pensions and care are freed from market uncertainty the ideology and the illusion among working people of the need for growth and ever increasing incomes break down.
CACCTU has started out with a very constructive proposal of climate jobs and now it has to walk the rocky road of challenging the growth myth and the logic of capitalism.
[1] See Victor, P. 2008, Managing without Growth: Slower by Design not Disaster, Edward Elgar; Jackson, T., 2009, Prosperity without Growth? The Transition to a Sustainable Economy, Sustainable Development Commission, London.
Photo: AtributionNoncommercialShare Alike Some rights reserved by greenforall.org
5 comments
Admin. · 28 December 2010
You can download the booklet from http://www.climate-change-jobs.org/sites/default/files/1MillionClimateJobs_2010.PDF
eco-socialist · 29 December 2010
Bulk purchases for union branches / campaign groups can be made through the website, or via Bookmarks Bookshop in London. There are discounts for orders over 10.
PhilW · 2 January 2011
I think this is a very good article, particularly the observation that a series of collective reforms (outlined in the second to last paragraph) and taxation measures would begin the break from consumerist ideology. This is more likely to happen than the other way around: combating climate change through moralistic appeals to consume less and relying on the cumulative effects of millions of tiny individual measures.
I want to ask three questions:
1) You mention what you call the "rebound effect" (and I think it is sometimes also named the "Jeevons paradox"), namely that a reduction in expenditure on energy - due to efficiency measures - would lead to more spending on other resources (or, indeed "turning up the thermostat"), but you don't really say explicitly how this can be overcome, or are the subsequent paragraphs (de-growth, work-sharing etc.) intended to outline such a response?
2) I'm a bit unsure about the term "scientifically well established ecological limits to growth" and I wonder if you could elaborate on this? (I happen to think that the ecological footprint - for example - is deeply flawed).
3) I'm a strong supporter of your idea of a "cap on top salaries" and redistribution, except that I think it should include income from all sources: (obviously) bonuses, but also dividends (Philip Green), inheritances and sale of valuable goods. Do you think it is necessary for socialists to be more explicit about such demands and to actually put numbers to them?
The Squeeze · 2 January 2011
Now I'm no expert energy economist, but I tend to agree that replacing petroleum consumption in vehicles negates the higher price of renewable fuel by a long way (or could do).
However, on my back of a fag packet numbers, 540TWh of offshore wind energy = about 70,000 new 3MW turbines (using a generous 30% capacity). If this is a 20 year plan that's like errecting 10 a day for 20 years!
It's difficult to cost, but based on the current developments I'd put the cost at about one trillion Euros in today's money. There are a few elephants in the room too:
1) Wind farms only work when there is the right wind speed, under this plan, in the recent cold snap we would have had powercuts.
2) The UK government have no patents on any wind power technology, to erect 10 a day, from now, starting from scratch and without using Vestas, Siemens or GE patented technology would be nigh on impossible.
I wouldn't vote for this as an energy policy.
Ozlem · 21 January 2011
Regarding the 3 questions:
1. yes, to deal with rebound effects, we need to have a strategy of de-growth or low/sustainable growth. work-sharing as well as labour intensive jobs are ways of creating full employment in a low/zero/de- growth envrironment. this can be politically achieved if redistribution solves the problems of working poor.
2. http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/prosperity_without_growth_report.pdf has some details and more references on the debate on limits to growth. but the really interesting reading is Victor, P. 2008, Managing without Growth: Slower by Design not Disaster. both are accessible for a broad audience. however they do suggest anti-capitalist alternatives in a low growth world.
3. yes, i think we should start to be more specific about numbers about tax rates. i suggest some numbers in /1081/their-multiple-crisis-and-our-solutions-an-ecosocialist-transitional-programme: "Progressive income tax should be used to impose a maximum income, with the highest marginal tax rate increasing to 90-95% above £80,000-90,000, affecting some 1-2% of waged employee. Indeed, this rate is not radical compared to what we had before Thatcher: between 1974 and 1979 the top income tax rate was 83% on incomes above £90,500 at today’s prices (£24,000 at 1979’s)!" Needless to say there should be many more details like that.