Analyzing the Requirements of a Sustainable, Worker-Involved Just Transition
Introduction
The climate crisis is arguably one of the most pressing issues of our time, with drought, wildfire, heatwaves, and extreme rainfall becoming more frequent and dangerous in recent years, with devastating consequences. Annual reports highlight that at the current rate, urgent and transformative changes to how we live are necessary to combat it. Most significantly, scientists point to the pressing need to phase out fossil fuels, the leading cause of global emissions. Governments, however, have been hesitant to undergo these necessary changes, instead adopting policies with decades-long goals and insignificant emission cuts. This is in part due to the difficulty in conceiving of a rapid energy transition that provides dependable and sufficient energy to communities, but also because calls for the elimination of fossil fuels have proven to be politically unpopular. From the very top - oil and gas companies and lobbying groups that influence politics - to the blue-collar workers who fear the elimination of their jobs, various groups have looked to delay this transition, often citing the need to preserve jobs and economic growth.
Just transitions, then, seek to address this conflict, calling for a transition that both appropriately meets the demands of the current climate crisis while also providing transitional pathways for workers affected by the phasing out of fossil fuels. It is credited to Tony Mazzocchi, a labor unionist in the 1970s who called for the elimination of jobs that were too dangerous for workers or the environment, while offering workers new paths forward. Because of their complexity, a just transition that manages to meet both of these needs has not been fully realized; however, there have been examples of just transitions that navigate the phasing out of fossil fuels to some degree while protecting affected communities from economic devastation. The main goal of this research was to analyze these examples, consider which parts were successful and how they may be applied to future transitions. Additionally, it sought to understand what is necessary to achieve a full, true just transition.
Capitalism, Fossil Fuels and Just Transitions
At the front of just transition research is a discussion of how capitalist economies fit within just transitions. As the idea becomes more commonplace within environmental and energy policies, some argue that transitions are best carried by “green economic growth”, centered around market incentives that would lead the energy transition to renewables and create good, green jobs in the process. This has certainly been the more palatable approach. Green economic growth faces less opposition from big business and lobby groups because it allows the dominant economic model of the Global North to maintain its stronghold. Opposing research argues that the current climate crisis has largely been fueled by the profit-above-everything business model of capitalism, and it is inherently contradictory to expect this same business model to carry out a just transition – especially, this research argues, considering that a just transition by definition is focused on the protection of both environment and workers, two things capitalism by nature exploits. As such, this research also explores the inherent connections between capitalism, the current climate crisis, and labor exploitation.
Comparative Analysis – U.S. vs Germany
U.S. Case Study
The United States is used as a case study to explore these connections. Investigations of two of the most significant fossil fuel industrial disasters in the country, the B.P oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion in West Virginia, revealed that the pursuit of profit maximization by company leadership directly led to the missteps that caused both disasters. These events resulted in a total of 41 workers’ deaths and, in the former, the largest environmental disasters in recent years, spilling 4 million tons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. These investigations also found a consistent pattern of governmental failures, where regulatory bodies routinely overlooked significant issues that, if properly addressed, may have prevented the disasters. The ineptness of these regulators was the result of both underfunded agencies and years of industry lobbying for more lax regulations.
Capitalism’s goal of profit maximization has also been one of the leading causes for the United States’ refusal to appropriately address the climate crisis. From decades of successful misinformation campaigns by the fossil fuel industry, who were aware almost fifty years ago of their industry’s effect on the climate, to the politicization of climate change in recent decades, interested parties have long sought to persuade both the American public and policymakers that acting on climate change was both unnecessary and ultimately harmful for the American economy and people. Research has found that amongst Western countries, Americans are the most skeptical that global warming is occurring, or that it is caused by human behavior.
Political positions against energy transitions have largely centered around a “jobs versus environment” argument, wherein they posit that it would inherently harm the American people by erasing fossil fuel jobs, largely filled by blue-collar workers. In the Appalachian region of the United States (often nicknamed “coal country”), many political analysts point to Donald Trump’s promises to "bring coal back" in comparison to Hillary Clinton’s declaration that she would “put coal companies out of business” as a significant reason for his success in the region.
Considering the American public’s skepticism towards energy transitions, a significant challenge in just transition policies is ensuring affected workers are included in policymaking and the ultimate goals – to provide transitional pathways that would protect both workers and communities that depend on fossil fuels – are clear to the public. Analyses of news articles, surveys, and labor union statements found most workers were cynical about the promises of a just transition; they had seen what happens when coal jobs disappear and found it hard to trust politicians and climate activists who promise a different outcome. Their expectations, simply put, are the continued opportunity for a career and income that allows them to provide for themselves and for their families, and one that makes them feel as though they are contributing to society. They want to be recognized for their past contributions, to have their grievances not only acknowledged, but addressed, by governments and leaders who have failed them in the past.
German Case Study
In comparison to the U.S. economic model, the German model is a significantly more regulated form of capitalism that allows for stronger social welfare and environmental protections. This research analyzed the role these existing regulations played in Germany’s Ruhr region’s transition from coal, and how this transition may be used as a model for future just transitions.
The Ruhr transition occurred over a 60-year period, due to the economic decline of coal beginning in the late 1950s rather than concerns about the environmental effects of coal mining. Various programs were implemented to ensure coal miners were not neglected during the region’s coal phase out, offering transitional job pathways or early retirement. Targeted financial investments and development programs were designed to protect the Ruhr region from economic devastation, focusing on diversifying a once coal-dependent economy. Regional development programs included environmental remediation, infrastructure upgrades, and the building of various recreational parks, technology business hubs, and universities. Existing economic and social welfare structures were essential to the transition, and principles such as codetermination, fiscal equalization, and strong social security ensured the wellbeing of workers and vulnerable communities was prioritized.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to call the German model a complete success in the context of today’s climate catastrophe, given the country's continued reliance on coal and even the resurgence in its use. The country is set to miss its Paris Agreement targets, and as recently as this year has reopened coal mines. And, similarly to the United States, the “jobs versus environment” argument has become increasingly commonplace surrounding the Lusatian region’s transition from lignite coal. In light of these concerns, the German model alone is unlikely to be a sufficient guide to a true just transition.
Just Transitions under Capitalism
International nongovernmental bodies, state governments (specifically among the Global North), trade unions and even many of those in environmental and climate activism sectors often promote green economic growth, or green capitalism, as a pathway for just transitions. Green capitalism, of course, is still capitalism – an inherently exploitative process that, as seen in the U.S. case study, has put profit over the safety and rights of workers. Analyzing multiple companies within the green energy sector, we find many of the same worker violations fossil fuel workers experienced. Ultium Cells, an electric vehicle battery manufacturer, had 22 workplace injuries and 48 calls to police regarding health and safety in its first year. In the Middle East, Africa and South America, significant conflicts, some resulting in the deaths of protestors, have erupted following land disputes where hydrogen plants have planned construction. Cobalt, which is used in EV battery manufacturing, has been tied to child labor in Congo. In Germany, despite the country’s strict labor norms and protections, Tesla was granted the ability to operate “around the clock” on weekdays and from 7 AM to 8 PM on Sundays; the company also refused to sign collective bargaining agreements and pays less than similar jobs in the auto sector.
Many scholars look to theories of degrowth, an idea that the climate catastrophe is a direct result of continued economic growth, overproduction, and overconsumption; consequently the only way to mitigate the crisis is by reducing consumption and in turn, production. While “degrowth” may inherently seem negative, it calls for a shift in the way we think of developmental goals and quality of life, rather than tying them to economic growth as is currently the norm. It focuses on a redistribution of goods and services amongst society, access to education, social and cultural rights, and sustainable and healthy living standards within the limits of our environment. Where labor is concerned, degrowth policies would likely result in reduced working hours, without a reduction in salaries. Degrowth proponents also call for the decoupling of one’s labor from their income and income from their social rights, resulting in less vulnerability to labor exploitation.
Degrowth principles may seem radical, and in countries like the United States may seem altogether impossible given the current political landscape. But in regions like Appalachia, decimated by the loss of coal jobs and economic decline, certain principles of degrowth (fair distribution of wealth, universal basic income, greater access to public goods) will be necessary for a just transition. In fact, there are overlaps between degrowth principles and the Ruhr transition policies. While many of the policies focused on boosting the region’s economy, they also included many principles of degrowth: a heightened quality of life, local development and production to equalize the region with its neighbors, as well as fair work and economic security for affected workers.
Challenges and Conclusions
We have not yet seen any successful, large-scale just transition that meets both goals as defined in this research work. As tensions build between the two groups – those who fight for rapid energy transitions, and those who struggle to keep the work that ensures their livelihoods –at the center of just transition discourse, a clear path forward seems increasingly difficult. The reality, however, is that the divide between these movements is not because they at their cores have fundamental differences. In fact, in the late 20th century, the two often allied for various causes. And, as stated previously, the historical cause of both labor and environmental exploitation is a profit-above-everything capitalist model. It is the reason that countries have failed to meet climate goals, and that global emissions have skyrocketed despite a climate catastrophe building for decades. It is also the reason for the worst environmental disaster in the United States of America, the reason for countless deaths in workplace related incidents, and the reason governmental institutions whose mandates are to oversee safety regulations in workplaces have failed workers over and over again.
But most significantly, it is this “profit first” mindset itself that separated the people of the labor and environmental movements, creating a false narrative that environmental regulations inherently meant job losses, with no other possible solution. Under capitalism, workers fighting to preserve their own jobs has meant their support for the preservation of fossil fuels, regardless of its cost. Alternatively, some members of the environmental movement, desperately confronting the climate crisis, applaud climate policies that may not guarantee protections for fossil fuel workers. Those who benefit most from capitalism continuously push the “jobs versus environment” discourse to fuel this divide. This, however, has a positive implication: it means those at the top recognize the need for labor and environmental movements to be at odds. Should the two acknowledge their grievances stem from the same cause, a united movement would shift political power in their favor and make preserving both this profit-first business model and fossil fuels significantly more difficult. As such, the conclusions of this research find that, while not a simple task, at the heart of realizing a just transition is reuniting both labor and environmental movements, in which neither continues to accept perceived wins for one side at the cost of the other.