Laborâ€™s Road to Copenhagen

While world leaders play the “blame game” for their failure to negotiate a binding climate agreement in Copenhagen, trade unions from around the world, almost unnoticed, have forged their own common approach to climate protection.   





The global trade union movement has committed itself to the IPPC’s science-based targets.  In its statement to the Copenhagen negotiations, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which represents 170 million workers in trade unions around the world, said,

“We reaffirm the commitment of the global trade union movement to achieving an agreement that will limit the global temperature to raise no more than 2 degrees C. . . .  trade unions urge Governments at the UNFCCC [climate change negotiations] in Copenhagen to follow the IPCC scenario for reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 85% lower than their 1990 levels by the year 2050 and emphasize the need for interim targets for this to be achieved, including a corresponding reduction of at least 25-40% by developed countries by 2020 below 1990 levels.”

Shortly before the Copenhagen Conference was scheduled to open, Guy Ryder, General Secretary of the ITUC, reaffirmed this position: “The world simply cannot afford further delays in action to avoid catastrophic climate change.  Political leadership is critically important at this juncture, and unless momentum is regained, with world will pay a heavy price.”

Not every union or federation worldwide fully endorses these targets.  For example, the Solidarity union in Poland, which has almost a million coal-related jobs, has warned that EU climate protection measures will simply shift coal production from Poland to the Ukraine.  The AFL-CIO has not endorsed the IPCC targets, and in a non-public statement distributed by the AFL-CIO at climate negotiations a year ago said that the US’s “high degree of dependence on fossil fuels generally, and on coal for electricity generation, poses unique challenges for structuring near-term climate change policies that would not unduly harm workers, the economy, and consumers.”  But they have not tried to block the ITUC’s approach.


The forging of a common position has been based on the idea of creating an overall global strategy that includes the needs of working people in different parts of the world, different countries, and different industries.  The ITUC says its platform was developed through “an exhaustive 18-month process of negotiation involving trade unions from every part of the world, and reflects the concerns and proposals of working people from developing and industrialized countries.”  It represents a “dual commitment towards the environment and society.”  It calls for both “urgently needed emissions reductions” and for “changing the way we produce, consume, and interact.”

The global labor strategy is based on the idea that fixing global warming is not just a matter of a few adjustments, but rather requires global systemic change – a transition to a different kind of economy.  That transition provides the opportunity to build a world that is far more just as well as far more sustainable.


The global fuel, food, unemployment, and climate crises all originate in a “socially unjust and environmentally unsustainable model” which has “translated wealth creation into environmental degradation and the concentration of income into the hands of a few.”  These multiple crisis must be addressed in a coherent way that “transforms our societies and workplaces into sustainable ones” to ensure jobs and livelihoods now and in the future.

A just transition

At the core of global labor’s strategy for climate protection is the idea of a “just transition” to a low-carbon future.

A just transition means that the burden of change that benefits everyone will not be placed disproportionately on a few.  It means that those most vulnerable to change will be protected.  It means that the process of change will increase social justice for workers, women, the poor, and all oppressed groups.

Such a just transition is essential to produce the “broad and sustainable political consensus” necessary to make climate protection policy work in the long run.  

The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which represents 170 million workers in unions all over the world, campaigned for language embodying the just transition principle in the negotiating text of the Copenhagen agreement.  Such language was submitted by Argentina and proposed as part of the “shared vision” by the Chair of the negotiations in May.  It read:


Since then this language has been “bracketed,” meaning that at least one government has questioned or opposed it.  Unions around the world have been lobbying their governments to keep it in.

The ITUC says a just transition can be achieved:


Bob Baugh, executive director of the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council and co-chair of the AFL-CIO Energy Task Force, elaborates:

"What the trade union movement wants is an industrial and environmental policy that delivers a good, just transition for a world moving to a greener economy.  You can’t have a just transition without workers and their communities having a voice.  Also, a just transition requires investments to retain and create good jobs, modernize industry, education and training, and provide assistance for any workers and their families who may be adversely affected."

While just transition policies will of course be different in different countries and communities, the basic elements are likely to include:


–Identification in advance of the employment effects of climate protection.

–Advance planning to compensate for adverse affects of climate protection.


–Training and education for new careers for those affected.

–Wide consultation among stakeholders.


–Protection for the economic life of communities, including new energy technologies and economic diversification.


Climate-protecting development

One of the most contentious issues in climate negotiations is how to share the burden of climate protection between the rich developed countries of the North and the poor developing countries of the South.

The ITUC represents unionized workers in all parts of the world, including both the developed and the developing countries.  For that reason it has had to work hard to develop a consensus based on an approach to climate protection that recognizes the needs of workers in developing countries while also protecting workers in developed countries.

The ITUC’s approach starts from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement that developed and developing countries have “common” but “differentiated” responsibilities.

The ITUC agrees:

“Developed countries must take the lead on emission reductions, and provide sufficient funding for adaptation if we want to have a chance for achieving sustainable development and social justice.  Developing countries can change the nature of their growth if they are provided with the necessary funding and technology to undertake those measures.”

Drawing on a traditional labor theme, the ITUC calls on governments and society to show “solidarity with those who are most vulnerable around the world.”


The ITUC calls for developing countries to participate through targets on renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, and forest protection.  Developed countries need to support these efforts through finance and technology transfer.

Why workers matter for climate protection



For trade unionists, “climate change raises important questions about social justice, equity and human rights across countries and generations.” Solidarity, not greed, must provide the answers to those questions.



[Joe Uehlein is the founder of the Labor Network for Sustainability, dedicated to engaging trade unions, workers and their allies to support economic, social, and environmental sustainability.  Before founding LNS, Joe was the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO’s Industrial Union Department and former director of the AFL-CIO Center for Strategic Campaigns. Joe is also a founder and board member of Ceres, a member of the National Advisory Board of the Union of Concerned Scientists and a senior advisor to the Blue Green Alliance.]

Leave a comment