Net Zero is a trade union issue
This year's TUC Conference showed the rising tension between an ideological support of Net Zero and the real-world affects of it on workers
All my working life, I have been an active trade unionist. I’ve served on branch committees, regional committees, been branch chair and then branch secretary of one of the biggest branches in my union, and I served two terms as a national executive member. Before I retired in 2022, I worked full-time as a trade union organiser. Trade unions are in my blood. But I have always been frustrated by the adherence to the climate alarm narrative within the labour movement.
Defending workers
I believe that the central role of trade unions is to protect workers in struggle, defend their jobs and improve working conditions. ‘Protecting the planet’ should not be a policy objective of an organisation which is part of the labour movement.
This year, the TUC Conference took place in Brighton. One motion to be debated at the conference caught my attention, so I made sure that I watched the debate. The specific part of the motion which I thought was key was also the part which provoked inevitable dissent. Five trade unions moved and supported the motion, while three speakers from different trade unions spoke against it. For me, these were the key points:
“Congress agrees to do everything in its power to prevent oil and gas workers becoming the miners of net zero.”
“We will not let them suffer the equivalent of the coal closures, which broke the back of mining towns across the UK.”
The motion had been composited (pulled together and agreed by different unions), to get it onto the conference agenda. Unite and GMB proposed and seconded it, while Aegis and Nautilus International supported it, with the NASUWT also speaking in favour. Speakers from UNISON, UCU and the NEU spoke in opposition.
Our future hangs in the balance
The mover of the motion made it clear that ‘the future of over 30,000 oil and gas jobs hangs in the balance’. He spoke passionately about the need to remember the devastation to jobs and local communities (referencing the miners’ strike from 40 years ago) that can happen if industries close. He also reminded the conference correctly that ‘we are going to need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future’. Jobs in these industries in the UK, he argued, should be fought for, otherwise the jobs and the industries will just continue overseas. ‘The path to Net Zero’ he warned ‘will end up as a path to nowhere’.
In response to those who want to ban fossil fuels (and those who spoke against the motion clearly want to) he stated quite simply and effectively:
‘No ban, without a plan’.
Other speakers backed up these arguments. But those who opposed the motion showed their ignorance of and detachment from the real-world struggles of working class communities fighting to defend their livelihoods. The comparison with the miners' strike was therefore appropriate.
One speaker stated ‘there are no jobs on a dead planet’, instantly diminishing with a rhetorical and scientifically unsupportable flourish the needs of working class communities to a secondary consideration. They also added to the climate apocalism by asserting ‘we can’t avert the crisis’. I find this a strange thing to claim as part of a movement which clearly exists to support and increase the agency of workers.
The speaker from UCU who opposed the motion couldn’t seem to grasp why the movers had made the comparison with the miners. It seemed obvious to me and perhaps it would to many others. Mining communities, like the ones my family are from, were devastated by the closure of the pits. Closing down other fossil fuel industries like oil and gas would bring the same fate to oil and gas communities.
He also said that ‘we have to identify who is the main enemy… and it’s not the environmental movement’. This is where I think those opposing the motion were totally wrong. Make no bones about it, Net Zero legislation is Tory legislation brought in by an extension to the Climate Act 2008 as a sort of bizarre leaving present to Theresa May. With this target-driven law as a backdrop the environmentalist movement constantly argues for measures which will impoverish and diminish the lives of the working class. This ought to be directly contrary to the aims of the trade union movement.
The final speaker ramped up climate fear even further, by referring in general to catastrophes with no reference to supporting evidence. They then accused those who might support the motion of a ‘collective suicide pact’ and ‘holding all of us to ransom’. Such miserabilist views of the future should not be a feature of contemporary trade unionism.
In the end the majority voted for jobs and communities but it was a close run thing! A remarkably close vote by a show of hands was narrowly declared in favour of the motion by the chair. But after a vocal outcry, a card count was called. This itself is a rare event. At the Congress one delegate’s vote can represent thousands of workers, and so the vote which eventually passed the motion was:
In favour: 2,712,000
Against: 2,457,000
A tense vote, some uncontested rhetoric, but good sense and speeches with a positive vision in defence of jobs and communities won the day.
Support my work
What may seem a very marginal and esoteric trade union debate to some is, I believe, an important bellwether for the opinions of ordinary people. There is rising tension between the luxury beliefs of a vocal minority and the real-world concerns of ordinary people. This tension is evident across society and not limited to the organised labour movement. The climate debate is being posed as technical and scientific and so outside the remit of ordinary people. We are directed to “follow the science” but the science which is quoted is that which can be cherry-picked and misrepresented in support of an ideology.
In this Substack I hope to explore and clarify a muddied but vital debate and to redress the balance against apocalyptic visions which have colonised the Left and workers organisations.
Please subscribe to get my posts straight into your inbox, and share this article with others to support my work.
Excellent article David. Thank goodness the trade Union movement is finally waking up to this. I shall share with our local Labour MPs who can’t seem to grasp just how many jobs Net Zero is going to take. They are supporting a major wind farm proposal here in our peat moors. 😣
Good article Dave. It's pleasing to see trade unionists arguing good sense, and fighting to defend the interests of communities. Jobs and livelihoods need to be central to the labour movement, not arguments which put the planet first.