Labour needs to be active on more than "just transition". What about border measures?

Throughout the week in Copenhagen, the International Trade Union Confederation kept all COP 15 participants from the Labour Movement informed about the status of the "just transition" references in the negotiated documents.

Just transition really refers to helping working people adjust to the economic impacts that will accompany any effective climate change policy. Investing in new greener technologies and renewable energy as a tool of job creation; skills training; consultations with unions; and labour adjustment (i.e. employment insurance, social policy, etc.) are all elements of just transition. All is this very important stuff, and trade unions around the world should be advocating for just transition.

But there is more that Labour can speak to. Reports on the substance of the negotiations seem to indicate the stumbling blocks include whether or not emission reduction targets for developing nations are hard targets or a function of economic growth; verification of the progress in meeting any agreed to emissions targets; and funding for developing nations to adapt. These are substantive issues, and they touch on who pays for addressing climate change and whether or not any agreement will be meaningful. Perhaps Labour should be speaking on some of these substantive issues.

For example, consider the issue of different targets for different nations. Each nation has to be mindful of the economic and environmental impacts of agreeing to vastly different domestic targets.

Consider this. If in an attempt to lower green house gasses, Canada, the United States and the EU impose a cap and trade system that effectively puts a price on producing a ton of green house gas emissions - that will drive up the cost of producing a wide variety of products in those participating countries. If large multinational corporations have the option of shifting production to jurisdictions where there is no such cost and are still able to sell into the markets of those countries that did impose the cap and trade system - they will do it. If that happens, there is no meaningful reduction in emissions - only a change in where those emissions occur, and a loss of jobs in the country that tried to reduce its emissions.

Surely any negotiated system of addressing climate change should result in the reduction of global emissions rather than the shifting of carbon emitting industries to justifications with weaker standards.

One way to address this problem is through the use of border measures. If only some nations participate in a cap and trade system, those nations could attempt to measure the impact that the system has on producing trade sensitive goods - say a ton of steel or an automobile. Then if a ton of steel or automobile is produced in a jurisdiction without a comparable system, a duty could be placed on such goods that is equal to the increased production costs arising from the cap and trade system in the importing nation.

Now I can hear all the "protectionism" groans from here. But is the world really better off when the emissions source is simply moved to a new jurisdiction?

Developing nations certainly need assistance to adapt. Some need it much more than others. Some revenue generated from auctioning off allowances and applying border measures might be used to provide additional adaptation assistance to those developing nations that need it most.

Just transition is very important - but the current stumbling blocks to a global agreement touch on issues much broader than that. Perhaps the global trade union movement should advocate a cap and trade system and a system of emissions verification. Such a system might include the right of participating nations to apply border measures to prevent "emissions leaking" to jurisdictions with lower standards. It might also include additional assistance to developing nations that require it.

Blue Green Canada, our alliance between the United Steelworkers and Environmental Defence has advocated a cap and trade system that includes border measures.

Perhaps more trade unions, and more environmentalists, should think about doing the same.

Just a thought