Energy policy and the climate crisis ought to be seen in terms of a logic of cause and effect. Yet, politics and news media tend to address these as separate issues. The anthropogenic origin of global warming is an incontrovertible fact, and it is well-known that the emission of climate-altering gases as a result of human activities causes death, destruction and economic losses, and increasing social divides and inequalities. Fossil fuels are surely not the only culprits in this regard. Deforestation, intensive livestock farming, changes in land use, and waste are also among the cause of climate change. But as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, the United Nations’ panel of experts on climate change) has certified, burning fossil fuels has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 over the last twenty years. It is entirely plausible that the use of fossil fuels, whether for energy or transport, is the main cause of global warming over the last fifty years.
We also know that decarbonisation is proceeding too slowly. There is a huge gap between the projected emissions in 2030, based on the ‘nationally determined contributions’ stipulated under the Paris Agreement, and the emission reductions which the IPCC indicates as consistent with the goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C.
We need a 43% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and a 60% reduction by 2035, compared to 2019 levels, in order to achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 globally. Yet today, emissions are still rising.
Against this backdrop, the Europe of the Green Deal, with its ‘Climate Act’, has declared itself a leader in climate action by announcing its willingness to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, and its intention to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Yet in recent years, Europe has shifted back and forth between ambitious steps and more contradictory measures. It has raised the targets for the share of energy from renewable sources and energy efficiency to 45% and 42% respectively by 2030. The EU moreover pledged to allocate at least 30% of its 2021-2027 budget to climate action, an important decision but one that amounts to less than 10% of the total investment needed to reach the 2030 targets, roughly estimated at €1 trillion per year. Theoretically, the remainder of the investments should come from private and national funds, but there are no guarantees that this will indeed happen. The EU has introduced the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ principle to ensure compliance with European environmental objectives, including climate change mitigation and adaptation. But at the same time, it has also introduced gas and nuclear energy into the taxonomy of ‘sustainable’ investments. It has set up a just-transition mechanism and a social climate fund to avoid negative social impacts (including on employment) as a result of ecological reconversion. Yet, these both lack adequate resources, and the mechanism that is supposed to protect employment is limited to a few carbon-intensive territorial areas, even though decarbonisation is bound to shake up all economic sectors and territories.
In these conditions, it is surely difficult to be optimistic about Europe’s ability to meet its own 2030 targets. For now, the data tell us that the EU met its emission reduction commitments up to 2020 and reduced emissions by 26% in the period 1990-2019, in the same period when global emissions grew by 57%. As a result, the EU’s share of global emissions fell from 15.3% to 7.9% over this same period. This picture seems like a positive one, but is also an effect of a rather particular conjuncture, namely the reduction in emissions during the period of economic lockdowns owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, as the European Court of Auditors recently pointed out, emissions from international aviation and maritime transport are not accounted for, and, indeed, global emissions are accounted for in the country of production. If they were instead accounted for where products are consumed, EU emissions would be fully 8 percentage points higher than current levels. Another crucial issue is the responsibility of rich, Western countries in global heating more generally. A responsibility that is measured in terms of historical emissions, current per capita emissions, and these country’s economic and technological capabilities. Europe, which has a certain degree of historical responsibility and the economic and technological conditions to govern the ecological transition, must do its part. This means drastically reducing climate-changing gas emissions over the next six years and supporting the transition of developing countries with financial and technological transfers in a cooperative manner, without imperialist, colonial and exploitative ends.
At the global level, the commitment which rich countries made in 2019 to contribute $100 billion per year in climate finance to developing economies has not yet been fulfilled. This figure is, in any case, derisory compared to what would be needed to ensure the well-being of those countries without fossil fuels, protect their populations from climate disasters, and cover damage and losses. The populations and countries most affected (MAPA) by the consequences of climate change (floods, droughts, famine, forced migrations) have a tiny responsibility compared to the countries of the global North. The African continent, for example, is home to nearly 1.3 billion people, is responsible for less than 4% of global CO2 emissions and less than 1% of cumulative historical emissions. The average annual emissions of people living in Africa are 1 tonne of CO2 per capita, with many of the poorest sub-Saharan countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia and the Central African Republic registering per capita emissions of only 0.1 tonne per year. This strikingly contrasts with the figures in Western countries: 10.3 tonnes in North America, 10 in Oceania and 7.1 in Europe.
Energy and the Wars
Many of these countries could aim to develop renewable energy sources, if supported by international cooperation, but they are caught in the debt trap that ‘forces’ them to engage in new fossil projects to repay loans from the International Monetary Fund, global North states and private investors. In general, the projects supported by the rich countries, when they do not directly target fossil fuels, are false solutions aimed at maintaining the fossil energy system, such as carbon removals and CO2 sequestration with the exploitation of forests and nature. These are flanked by projects for the development of renewable energies and the search for strategic minerals in the ecological transition, but which are governed by an exclusively colonialist perspective, to the detriment of the needs and self-determination of indigenous and tribal peoples.
The attack on Ukraine in February 2022, and the subsequent EU decision to cut fossil imports from Russia, could have led to a break with the old energy system. The cut in Russian gas and oil imports could have been compensated for by substantial energy-saving and energy-efficiency measures, with massive investments in infrastructure and plants for renewable energy production. Instead, the systemic reaction went in a completely different direction, preserving a business-as-usual linked to fossil fuels. In May 2022, the European Commission launched RePowerEU, which then came into force in March 2023 with Regulation 2023/435. Its aim was to react to the disruption of the energy market resulting from the conflict by seeking to reduce — up to outright elimination by 2030 — fossil imports from Russia. This was to proceed by means of energy savings, clean energy production, and diversification of energy supplies. EU member states have been most enthusiastic about import diversification, activating new liquified natural gas (LNG) import contracts, new agreements and new gas import infrastructures, even with autocratic, human rights-violating governments outside the EU.
In 2020, fossil energy imports from Russia to the EU (gas, oil and coal) accounted for 24.4% of total energy availability. Since the sanctions imposed after the February 2022 attack, energy imports from Russia have clearly decreased significantly. For example, imports of Russian gas fell from 29.2% of total gas imports in January 2022 to 11.6% in October 2022 (-17.6%). However, the collapse of gas imports from Russia started already before February 2022. In fact, gas imports from Russia had already dropped from 48% in February 2021 (a -18.8% fall before the invasion was actually launched). The reduction of gas imports from Russia into the EU was mainly offset by a substantial increase in imports of LNG mainly from the US. This figure went from 0.65 billion cubic metres (bcm) in January 2021 to 4.09 bcm of LNG imported from the US in October 2022.
EU RePower also envisages the possibility of importing hydrogen ‘from non-fossil sources’. It makes explicit reference to the possibility of advancing projects for the production of hydrogen ‘from nuclear power’, and most importantly of all stipulates that the Do No Significant Harm principle can be waived for the sake of allowing the construction of new energy infrastructure.
Also, in reaction to the war in Ukraine, IEA member countries twice agreed to release oil from emergency reserves to reduce market tensions and give a signal of reassurance that there would be no shortage of supplies. On 1 March 2022, IEA member countries committed to releasing 62.7 million barrels of oil stocks and on 1 April 2022 they agreed to release a further 120 million barrels. The largest stockpile release in this agency’s history, this came at a time when the IEA itself claimed that the only lasting solution to both the energy and climate crises lies in a rapid transition to clean energy.
This type of response, with its stubborn and ideological commitment to the fossil energy system, and its renewed interest in nuclear power, fails on several counts. Besides being irresponsible in terms of combating the climate crisis, it was — and is — extremely damaging to the economy, social stability and employment. Dependence on gas exposes our societies to the price volatility of the globalised market. This market is prey to various factors for turbulence: the trends of supply and demand, speculation, geopolitical tensions, wars, sabotage of pipelines, etc. After a decade in which gas prices had fluctuated between €5 and €35, a peak of €350/Mwh was reached in August 2022. It was not only the war in Ukraine that drove prices up: first there was the increase in demand linked to the post-COVID recovery in production, but also financial speculation and extra profits. Today, prices are rising again due to the war in the Middle East, and in the future, there may be other variables. As long as energy is subject to the rules of the market, prices will be uncontrollable, and every time the price rises, this will undermine the competitiveness of companies and the budgets of citizens and families, with a devastating impact on people already living in poverty and precarious working and economic conditions. This also owes to the reality that the cost of energy does not only affect the increase in utility bills and transport costs, but — more generally — the increase in prices of all consumer goods and services and inflation.
It should also be said that armed forces are responsible, according to some estimates, for about 6% of global emissions. A recent study by the Ecoaction Centre for Environmental Initiatives estimated that the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the first twelve months of the war in Ukraine amounted to 120 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence (tCO2e), which corresponds to the emissions produced during the same period in a country like Belgium. In the face of the horror of war, however, these figures are easily overlooked.
Global Governance
Returning to the subject of energy, access to clean energy for all is a right that must be guaranteed. It should be recognised as a common good, and thus be managed democratically, outside the logic of the market. The energy transition not only frees us from fossil fuels, but also sets the stage for the transition from a centralised system, dominated by the excessive power of lobbies and finance, to a decentralised, democratic and solidarity-based system. Renewable energy communities are not a generalised solution: their impact is limited to their members. Still, they are undoubtedly a positive prototype which can be further disseminated and replicated.
In the face of the dramatic consequences of the climate crisis and the costs of the energy crisis, the loss of jobs is the main argument with which almost all governments justify their failure to act. It is on these grounds that they promote the lengthening of the energy transition timeframe, flying in the face of the urgency and radical solutions demanded by all scientific reports. The narrative they advance is, however, spurious. For it is inaction on the environmental and climate side that ensures that rising sea levels, floods, droughts, heat waves etc. will have heavy social impacts in terms of employment and occupational health and safety. About 1.2 billion jobs depend on the health of the planet’s ecosystems. By 2030, 80 million jobs will be lost due to heat stress. Injuries, illnesses and deaths at work due to climate change will increase. 130 million people could fall into poverty in the next decade, jeopardising the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, and up to 216 million people could be forced into internal migration by 2050.
If anything, the opposite of their narrative is closer to the truth: for it is the ecological transition itself that foreshadows new employment opportunities: the energy transition will produce 24 million new jobs by 2030, the circular economy 78 million jobs by 2023. Nature-based solutions have already created 75 million jobs. The problem for employment will arise if the ecological transition is not properly governed. This can lead to geographical or temporal misalignments or negative impacts on wages, for young people, women or marginalised groups of workers. It is not enough to know that there will be an overall positive balance between the jobs lost on account of decarbonisation and the new jobs which are created in strategic sectors (energy efficiency, renewable energy, ecosystem protection and restoration, sustainable mobility, climate change adaptation, etc.) For we also have to make sure that the goal of full and good employment is achieved globally and locally so that no one is really left behind. Otherwise, it could happen, for example, that in the face of the closure of a fossil plant in a certain territory, new jobs for the production, installation and maintenance of photovoltaic panels are created in other territories, if not in other countries, leading to a productive and occupational desertification of that particular area. Or, that the timing between the closures of old plants and new openings do not coincide, leading to a phase of unemployment and social malaise; that new employment is not inclusive and maintains the current gender, generational and discriminatory gaps against migrant, disabled and LGBTQ+ workers; or, indeed, that the new employment distribution maintains the current territorial gaps, both within the same countries (the divides of north-south, centre-peripheries, metropolitan cities-inner areas) and between countries of the global North and South, thus exacerbating inequalities instead of reducing them.
All this demands action at a national and global level. At the national level, because the issues of ecological transition cannot be resolved within company or sectoral boundaries. It will hardly be possible to maintain the same number of employees in the same plant and the same sector. For example, in the transition from the current transport system to a sustainable, intermodal, electric transport system in which passenger mobility will have to be predominantly collective (in order to reduce energy and material consumption, but also traffic and accidents), the overall number of employees will decrease. Looking for a solution at the level of the individual production plant, but also the automotive sector as a whole, is certainly a losing ticket, while a transition governed by just-transition policies can aspire to achieving full, good-quality employment.
What is needed, therefore, are industrial policies. This means policies for research and technological innovation, and transition planning that respects the timescales indicated by science, promotes development, and creates employment. The jobs in question will best be concentrated in strategic sectors for decarbonisation, for the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity, for adaptation to climate change, for risk prevention, and for personal services, education, health, culture, and art. These policies must be guided by a state playing a strong role in the economy, also with direct job creation. It must also be the subject of negotiation with social partners and involve the full and democratic involvement of trade unions, communities, local authorities, associations and movements, universities and research centres. Just-transition measures must be put in place to avoid negative employment and social impacts: therefore, adequate resources are needed to guarantee universal social safety nets, lifelong learning and professional retraining towards new green and digital skills, and the occupational reinsertion of workers who will lose their jobs. But also needed are measures to guarantee clean energy for all, the right to collective sustainable mobility, the fight against energy poverty, and the right to healthy and sustainable food.
In this sense we need global governance, as the goal of a just transition is not to be achieved in a single country, continent or within Western countries alone: the goal is, rather, to achieve this globally. This concept is essential but also poses a steep challenge. Global governance must be strengthened: sustainable development goals, climate and biodiversity agreements, and declarations on just transition, taken without any participatory process, without any constraints and without any sanctions, have no chance of being realised. Multilateral processes are indispensable but still need to be reformed. Global issues, such as climate, just transition, universal social justice, etc., cannot be resolved without global and participatory governance.
Transitional Vision
Just transition, however, is clearly not only about preserving employment and labour rights. It is a concept that has taken on an increasingly broad and radical transformative perspective over the years. On the other hand, the issue of energy transition is not disconnected from the other issues we today face: wars, human rights violations, inequalities, gender, generational, and ethnic gaps, poverty, pollution, unemployment, etc. The fight for climate justice is also a fight for social justice: the goal of a just ecological transition synthesises all the elements of a radical systemic change, at a global level, that puts at its centre the well-being of all living beings and the planet, peace, equity, and respect for human rights. The complexity of this profound transformation is represented, at least in part, by the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. The UN agenda captures the interconnections between the various goals and indicates the need to pursue them all simultaneously, globally and inclusively, with no one left behind. Yet what is missing from the 2030 Agenda is the identification of the causes of the crises that follow one after the other in such rapid succession: health, social, economic, democratic, and climate crises, wars, etc. Without a proper analysis of the causes, and consequently without any intention and perspective to remove them, the sustainable development goals are destined to remain unattainable, at least in the universal and inclusive sense that they are supposed to have.
Predatory capitalism, neoliberalism, absolute faith in technological development and infinite growth, supported by a hyper-consumerist society, extractivism, neo-colonialism, wars, anthropocentrism, the exploitation of people, animals and nature, and racism, are all interconnected causes of these crises. And it is no coincidence that they are also the characteristics of a dominant system in which political power is inexorably intertwined with the interests of economic and financial lobbies, in which political action is bent to the market and profit maximisation. Just transition is a struggle to overturn priorities, to put the welfare of all living beings and nature before the interests of elites, for rich nations to assume their historical responsibilities and to empower workers, trade unions, associations, movements and communities in determining future choices, based on fairness, justice, equality, the protection of human and labour rights, and full good-quality employment. The just transition is a struggle to ensure a decent life and access to essential goods and services for all on a planet with limited resources. This means that we need to move from a linear and extractive economy to a circular and regenerative economy. It also means that in Western countries we need to reduce consumption and put aside the idea of infinite growth, with a view to equity.
The latest yardstick of the progress made — or not — was COP28 in Dubai, on 30 November to 13 December 2023. After Egypt last year, the presidency of the climate conference was once again entrusted to a repressive state that systematically violates human rights. The president of COP28 was in fact the CEO of the state oil company. In this context, the participation in the conference, as observers, of the trade union movement and all climate activists, had a great value in terms of holding authorities accountable and informing the wider public.
Still, change will not be easy. Indeed, it does not only demand radical system change breaking the existing structures of power, but also asks each of us to rethink our lifestyle and consumption. There is still a long way to go before we put collective wellbeing and the protection of the commons before individual selfishness. For most people who live in rich countries, and in relative prosperity, it is more acceptable to know that there are still people who suffer from malnutrition, do not have a job or a home, do not have access to water, energy, adequate education, etc., than to imagine buying less, taking fewer plane trips, choosing a predominantly plant-based diet, or travelling by public transport, walking or cycling instead of by private car. When we call for radical change, we must be aware, individually and collectively, that the change will affect everyone and that ensuring a fair distribution of resources and respecting the planet’s limits also means that we will have to give something up to ensure global equity. Meeting the challenge of change requires a strong movement that places absolute values at its core: solidarity, fairness, peace, respect and love for all living beings and nature, human rights, labour, protection of the commons and the community.
For a trade union organisation such as the Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Italy’s largest, climate action must be implemented in conjunction with social justice, peace and disarmament, equity and respect for human and labour rights. It must be done globally and in an inclusive manner. The just transition cannot be achieved without the democratic participation of communities and organised civil society. Freedoms of expression, protest and information are essential in decision-making processes as well as in climate change mitigation and adaptation projects. We shared these principles within the COP28 Coalition, which we joined. This is a network of more than 200 unions, movements, and associations from around the world, which denounces the blatant conflict of interest and illegitimacy of a conference hosted by a ‘petrostate’, denounces the violation of human rights perpetrated against communities within the UAE, in particular prisoners of conscience, migrant workers, women and the LGBTQI+ community, rejecting the use of COP28 to greenwash that government. The coalition called on all nations to make meaningful and ambitious commitments at the conference, with rich countries taking responsibility for their historical emissions and leading the transition with commitments in line with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and according to principles of equity. The message was clear: we need a global commitment to phase out all fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies at the rate needed to keep the global average temperature increase below 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels. This is a big challenge and carries a huge responsibility for the labour movement to find answers to ensure a fair and labour-centred transition. The CGIL took part in the International Trade Union Confederation delegation to the conference, also in view of June 2024 when — with Italy chairing the G7 — we will be engaged in the organisation of the ‘Labour 7’ representing trade unions.
From the global level to the level of the workplace, workers and trade unions must lead the transition, fighting to implement their own proposals for the reconversion of production, which will have to be shared on the territory with communities, movements, and associations. The CGIL has worked a lot on the issue of just transition and sustainable development. For years we have developed platforms, including together with the other unions, to integrate the fight for the climate and for the protection of biodiversity into all levels of our action. This takes place at both the confederation and category level, everywhere from relations with local authorities up to the government and international contexts, from company bargaining up to national labour contracts, and in disputes and mobilisations. On these issues we do training and we pursue and strengthen alliances with environmental associations, #FridaysForFuture, movements, and communities. It is not an easy path, but we are pursuing it with determination, even amidst contradictions. But we do it in the conviction that the energy transition and respect for nature, combined with fairness and respect for rights, is the only desirable and viable way to guarantee a future of peace and well-being for all.